Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[Faun]

But we for
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???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

"It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back."

The jury called it retreating.

But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.​

"Thus I see no conviction."

Yet one more thing you're wrong about...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp]Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

 

[miketx]

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???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

"It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back."

The jury called it retreating.

But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.​

"Thus I see no conviction."

Yet one more thing you're wrong about...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp]Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

 

[Faun]

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

"It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back."

The jury called it retreating.

But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.​

"Thus I see no conviction."

Yet one more thing you're wrong about...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp]Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

I didn't say you said it. Jeez, you're a freaking moron.

I asked you what is going to change the outcome since he was convicted on the video evidence showing McGlockton was retreating.

Sadly, you couldn't answer and gave that retarded response instead.

 

[Bush92]

Wonder how long his rap sheet is? Shooter most likely did society a favor. Guy was probably in the store to buy a couple 40’s and papers to roll some blunts. Could also have been buying items to smoke crack with.

It was proved in court that his system was loaded with high amounts of two drugs. He had been arrested before for assault.

He was all hyped-up on MDMA

Does that justify shooting him?

Under the law of self defense if you are in reasonable fear of your life you are entitled to use deadly force. Being violently shoved to the ground with your attacker advancing on you...clearly shown in the video should have been considered grounds to put drjeka in fear of his life.

How many times have we seen black thugs in videos beating some old guy to death?

The jury was incompetent.

It's not a reasonable fear when the person you fear is retreating.

Perhaps they assault you and aggressively smash you to the ground. Then you shoot the morherfucker. OK in my book.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

"It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back."

The jury called it retreating.

But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.​

"Thus I see no conviction."

Yet one more thing you're wrong about...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp]Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

I didn't say you said it. Jeez, you're a freaking moron.

I asked you what is going to change the outcome since he was convicted on the video evidence showing McGlockton was retreating.

Sadly, you couldn't answer and gave that retarded response instead.

You are not only ignorant of the law on self defense you are a exceedingly shallow thinker.

The law on simple self defense has always been based on the perception of the one under attack...if he 'reasonably' believes his life is in danger or that he may suffer grievious bodily injury then he is entitled to use lethal force.'

There is no reason to believe that he was not in reasonable fear of his life and in fact there is every reason to believe he was.

He had been violently shoved to the ground resulting in an injury to his right arm, causing him to be dazed and in at least a mild state of shock.

The black dude continued to advance on him even after he had shoved him to the ground.....why? Obviously he meant to continue the attack.

Fortunately for Drejka he was able to get his weapon out despite having his right arm injured,being dazed, disoriented and no doubt in a state of at least mild shock.


The attacker upon seeing the weapon come out was also shocked...he had sized up his victim on exiting the store and thought he would be a easy target--but lo and behold he has a gun...he recoiled at the sight of the weapon --backing up for a step or two but still facing his victim. He turned slightly but was still in striking distance of the victim. Thus still a threat.

This was all brought out in the trial but the jury must have been napping.

The victim with the help of his left hand manages to bring the weapon up and sight it....he did not have the benefit of a slow motion camera and did not see his attacker step slightly backward...his perception was that the attacker still posed a threat--one needs to remember this all happened very fast. And indeed it was very possible that the black thug might have decided to rush him. Not like it has not happened before....remember the black dude was doped up and in his state of altered reality there is telling what he might have done.

One thing for sure he had not retreated to enough of a distance to no longer pose a threat.

Unfortunately, the Jury did not appreciate how fast all of this happened....being misled by watching it frame by frame in slow motion. They did not grasp how quickly Drejka had to decide to shoot or not to shoot....and in fear of his life and or further bodily injury he pulled the trigger.

No basis to assume he was not in reasonable fear of his life after all that.

Thus the jury got it wrong

Now we see all this idiotic monday morning quarterbacking by folks who have not only the luxury of hindsight but also of a slow motion video and thus they also draw erroneous conclusions.

A terrible miscarriage of justice has occurred and it will have ramifications as has been pointed out....essentially-- altering the basic concept of self-defense which has always been based on the perception of the victim.

Hopefully on appeal this b.s. will get rectified.

 

[Faun]

"It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back."

The jury called it retreating.

But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.​

"Thus I see no conviction."

Yet one more thing you're wrong about...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp]Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

I didn't say you said it. Jeez, you're a freaking moron.

I asked you what is going to change the outcome since he was convicted on the video evidence showing McGlockton was retreating.

Sadly, you couldn't answer and gave that retarded response instead.

You are not only ignorant of the law on self defense you a exceedingly shallow thinker.

The law on simple self defense has always been based on the perception of the one under attack...if he 'reasonably' believes his life is in danger or that he may suffer grievious bodily injury then he is entitled to use lethal force.'

There is no reason to believe that he was not in reasonable fear of his life and in fact there is every reason to believe he was.

He had been violently shoved to the ground resulting in an injury to his right arm, causing him to be dazed and in a state of shock. The black dude continued to advance on him after he had shoved him to the ground.....why? Obviously he meant to continue the attack.

Fortunately for Drejka he was able to get his weapon out despite having his right arm injuredl,being dazed, disoriented and no doubt in a state of at least mild shock.


The attacker upon seeing the weapon come out was also shocked...he had sized up his victim on exiting the store and thought he would be a easy target--but lo and behold he has a gun...he recoiled at the sight of the weapon --backing up for a step or two but still facing his victim. He turned slightly but was still in striking distance of the victim. Thus still a threat.

This was all brought out in the trial but the jury must have been napping.

The victim with the help of his left hand manages to bring the weapon up and sight it....he did not have the benefit of a slow motion camera and did not see his attacker step slightly backward...his perception was that the attacker still posed a threat--one needs to remember this all happened very fast. And indeed it was very possible that the black thug might have decided to rush him. Not like it has not happened before....remember the black dude was doped up and in his state of altered reality there is telling what he might have done.

One thing for sure he had not retreated to enough of a distance to no longer pose a threat.

Unfortunately, the Jury did not appreciate how fast all of this happened....being misled by watching it frame by frame in slow motion. They did not grasp how quickly Drejka had to decide to shoot or not to shoot....and in fear of his life and or further bodily injury he pulled the trigger.

No basis to assume he was not in reasonable fear of his life after all that.

Thus the jury got it wrong

Now we see all this idiotic monday morning quarterbacking by folks who have not only the luxury of hindsight but also of a slow motion video and thus they also draw erroneous conclusions.

A terrible miscarriage of justice has occured and it will have ramifications as has been pointed out....essentially-- altering the basic concept of self-defense which has always been based on the perception of the victim.

Hopefully on appeal this b.s. will get rectified.

I guess you were too stupid to understand it the first time.

Believing a person who is in retreat is threatening imminent death or great bodily harm; is not a reasonable belief.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

You display a ignorance of the law on self defense in Florida. It has been posted...study up and get back with us.

BTW no reasonable person is going to walk out of a store and attack someone for merely arguing with his wife. This black dude was on drugs....the toxicology reports on his corpse revealed his system was overloaded with drugs. Thus the most likely reason he engaged in an irrational attack.

If he had been a rational person he would have engaged drejka in coversation to figure out what was going on and what the problem was. No reason to attack....especially in the presence of his children...what kind of example does that set. But also remember this black dude was driving his children around whilst high on drugs...he had no concern for his children or his wife...he was merely trying to show off by knocking some old white geezer down to impress his wife that he was a real man. Ridiculous.

What was the exact words of the person who went into the store and told the manager about the altercation going on outside? What did he say?

If you had not been too lazy to watch the trial you would know. He said to the store owner 'you have a problem on the parking lot--you might want to do something about that'

He is also the witness who heard the black bitch say to drejka 'when my man comes back we gonna fuck you up'.

I told you that I work for a living and am not a racist welfare case like you.

My money says you are simply making this up.

Have you ever been right about anything?

You haven't been right yet in this thread, so how the fuck would you know?

 

[MikeK]

It's not a reasonable fear when the person you fear is retreating.

Faun, you are sitting peacefully at a keyboard weighing this event with clear and calm thought processes. That was not the case with Drejka who had just been forcibly struck and knocked stunningly to the pavement by a huge and menacing Black man whose face probably reflected malicious rage. At a moment like this one does not, cannot, think clearly. Time freezes and instinct takes over. Drejka's action was reflexive, not calculated.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Actually, he met the legal threshold at the time of the shooting; that standard has changed the consequence of the verdict.

The law hasn't changed at all and THAT is what overturning of this poor verdict will be based on.

So the prosecutors, judge and the defense all did not know what the law was?

Dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

Except you said he didn't apply the stand your ground defense!

That is correct his lawyers did not use the stand your ground law. The media is very confused about it. Which means since you follow their lead like a lil lost sheep you are confused as well.

The following was posted before but you must have missed it like you miss so much.

Or perhaps you are getting senile in your old age and cannot remember shit.

No 'stand your ground' immunity for Clearwater shooter Michael Drejka

Do you know the difference between 'the stand your ground law' and simple self defense?

Let me take you to school again. Under simple self defense the victim only has one option to preserve his life....lethal force. He is in no position to be able to escape or retreat. Got dat?

Why do i have to explain everything to you?

You just quoted "Stand your ground" as simple self defense! My God, you are fucking retarded!

 

[Faun]

It's not a reasonable fear when the person you fear is retreating.

Faun, you are sitting peacefully at a keyboard weighing this event with clear and calm thought processes. That was not the case with Drejka who had just been forcibly struck and knocked stunningly to the pavement by a huge and menacing Black man whose face probably reflected malicious rage. At a moment like this one does not, cannot, think clearly. Time freezes and instinct takes over. Drejka's action was reflexive, not calculated.

Thanks for the perspective but not thinking clearly is not a defense of the law.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I said that the black guy was in the wrong. Did you not see that? He had no right to shove the white guy. But a shove doesn't equal a gunshot. Like others, I saw the black guy shove him and then back off. Not to mention why the F is the white concerning himself this couple? It's not his job to enforce the parking laws. He knows he has a concealed weapon. It was his place to stay away from confrontation.

Lookee here eienstein.....Drejka initiated no confrontation. He got out of his vehicle saw the other vehicle parked in a handicap spot....he checked the back of that car for a handicap placard and did not see one. Then he was checking the front of the car for a handicap placard when the black bitch rolled down her window and went off on drejka(if she was so scared as she claimed why did she roll down the window?) before the bitch rolled down the window due to the fact they were tinted drejka had no idea the vehicle was even occupied.

Drejka explained that due to the fact he has a handicapped family member people illegally parking in handicap spots is a pet peeve of his.

It was not that long ago the local news had ran a special on how so many people violate the handicap parking. So it is a big problem that a lot of people are concerned about.

During the jury selection process several potential jurors were dismissed because they voiced a concern about people violating handicap spots.

But it's not an offense punishable by DEATH and neither is pushing someone. smh Drejka should have called 911 if he was so upset. We all have pet peeves, but we all don't take the law into our own hands and cause a confrontation while armed.

Lookee here shit for brains....there is something known as the law on self defense....ever heard of it?

Drejka was not upset...he was calmly checking out the car to see if it had any handicap placards when the black bitch rolled down her window and went off on him. She is the one mainly responsible for the whole mess. Her drugged up boyfriend coming in second.

What would you do if some black thug came up and violently shoved you to the ground...let me guess....rolled over and cried?

What would you have done if after knocking you to the ground he then started kicking you in the head? Most likely died. How many videos circulate on the internet showing black thugs beating someone down and then kicking them in the head over and over. Not uncommon at all. You should take a course in how to think properly.

Pulling the gun was understandable. Pulling the trigger is manslaughter.

Obviously you cannot wrap your head around the fact that taking two steps back and turning to his side to present a smaller target is not retreating.

He was still in striking distance and still posed a deadly threat to Michael as we have seen time and again black thugs kicking their hapless victims to death.

It is retreating to anyone who is not fucking mentally retarded!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

I didn't say you said it. Jeez, you're a freaking moron.

I asked you what is going to change the outcome since he was convicted on the video evidence showing McGlockton was retreating.

Sadly, you couldn't answer and gave that retarded response instead.

You are not only ignorant of the law on self defense you a exceedingly shallow thinker.

The law on simple self defense has always been based on the perception of the one under attack...if he 'reasonably' believes his life is in danger or that he may suffer grievious bodily injury then he is entitled to use lethal force.'

There is no reason to believe that he was not in reasonable fear of his life and in fact there is every reason to believe he was.

He had been violently shoved to the ground resulting in an injury to his right arm, causing him to be dazed and in a state of shock. The black dude continued to advance on him after he had shoved him to the ground.....why? Obviously he meant to continue the attack.

Fortunately for Drejka he was able to get his weapon out despite having his right arm injuredl,being dazed, disoriented and no doubt in a state of at least mild shock.


The attacker upon seeing the weapon come out was also shocked...he had sized up his victim on exiting the store and thought he would be a easy target--but lo and behold he has a gun...he recoiled at the sight of the weapon --backing up for a step or two but still facing his victim. He turned slightly but was still in striking distance of the victim. Thus still a threat.

This was all brought out in the trial but the jury must have been napping.

The victim with the help of his left hand manages to bring the weapon up and sight it....he did not have the benefit of a slow motion camera and did not see his attacker step slightly backward...his perception was that the attacker still posed a threat--one needs to remember this all happened very fast. And indeed it was very possible that the black thug might have decided to rush him. Not like it has not happened before....remember the black dude was doped up and in his state of altered reality there is telling what he might have done.

One thing for sure he had not retreated to enough of a distance to no longer pose a threat.

Unfortunately, the Jury did not appreciate how fast all of this happened....being misled by watching it frame by frame in slow motion. They did not grasp how quickly Drejka had to decide to shoot or not to shoot....and in fear of his life and or further bodily injury he pulled the trigger.

No basis to assume he was not in reasonable fear of his life after all that.

Thus the jury got it wrong

Now we see all this idiotic monday morning quarterbacking by folks who have not only the luxury of hindsight but also of a slow motion video and thus they also draw erroneous conclusions.

A terrible miscarriage of justice has occured and it will have ramifications as has been pointed out....essentially-- altering the basic concept of self-defense which has always been based on the perception of the victim.

Hopefully on appeal this b.s. will get rectified.

I guess you were too stupid to understand it the first time.

Believing a person who is in retreat is threatening imminent death or great bodily harm; is not a reasonable belief.

You should have watched the trial...first of all Drejka had not seen him take a step or two backwards ...that was not his perception at all.........and the expert witness on how to recognize a viable threat explained in detail that what the black did should not be considered retreating...merely repositoning himself and presenting a smaller target by turning some what to the left.

The key point you are missing is that in reality the thug was still close enough to pose a threat to his victim...very close ...well within striking distance if he wanted to rush his victim and wrestle the gun away from him and then commence to beat him.

You cannot accurately predict what the thug might have done if Drejka had not shot him. If he meant to retreat he should have taken off running and he would still be alive today...there is however a big possibility he did not want to retreat but to attack again.

Again you must remember he was under the influence and not rational. No rational man will storm out of a store and attack a stranger for just being in a argument with his wife. A reasonable person would try to figure out what was going on....no not him he just rushed out and attacked ...no questions asked.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But we for
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???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

"It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back."

The jury called it retreating.

But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.​

"Thus I see no conviction."

Yet one more thing you're wrong about...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp]Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

Hey peckerhead, the defense does even get to present evidence in an appeal. It is all done on paper, you fucking twit!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

I didn't say you said it. Jeez, you're a freaking moron.

I asked you what is going to change the outcome since he was convicted on the video evidence showing McGlockton was retreating.

Sadly, you couldn't answer and gave that retarded response instead.

You are not only ignorant of the law on self defense you a exceedingly shallow thinker.

The law on simple self defense has always been based on the perception of the one under attack...if he 'reasonably' believes his life is in danger or that he may suffer grievious bodily injury then he is entitled to use lethal force.'

There is no reason to believe that he was not in reasonable fear of his life and in fact there is every reason to believe he was.

He had been violently shoved to the ground resulting in an injury to his right arm, causing him to be dazed and in a state of shock. The black dude continued to advance on him after he had shoved him to the ground.....why? Obviously he meant to continue the attack.

Fortunately for Drejka he was able to get his weapon out despite having his right arm injuredl,being dazed, disoriented and no doubt in a state of at least mild shock.


The attacker upon seeing the weapon come out was also shocked...he had sized up his victim on exiting the store and thought he would be a easy target--but lo and behold he has a gun...he recoiled at the sight of the weapon --backing up for a step or two but still facing his victim. He turned slightly but was still in striking distance of the victim. Thus still a threat.

This was all brought out in the trial but the jury must have been napping.

The victim with the help of his left hand manages to bring the weapon up and sight it....he did not have the benefit of a slow motion camera and did not see his attacker step slightly backward...his perception was that the attacker still posed a threat--one needs to remember this all happened very fast. And indeed it was very possible that the black thug might have decided to rush him. Not like it has not happened before....remember the black dude was doped up and in his state of altered reality there is telling what he might have done.

One thing for sure he had not retreated to enough of a distance to no longer pose a threat.

Unfortunately, the Jury did not appreciate how fast all of this happened....being misled by watching it frame by frame in slow motion. They did not grasp how quickly Drejka had to decide to shoot or not to shoot....and in fear of his life and or further bodily injury he pulled the trigger.

No basis to assume he was not in reasonable fear of his life after all that.

Thus the jury got it wrong

Now we see all this idiotic monday morning quarterbacking by folks who have not only the luxury of hindsight but also of a slow motion video and thus they also draw erroneous conclusions.

A terrible miscarriage of justice has occured and it will have ramifications as has been pointed out....essentially-- altering the basic concept of self-defense which has always been based on the perception of the victim.

Hopefully on appeal this b.s. will get rectified.

I guess you were too stupid to understand it the first time.

Believing a person who is in retreat is threatening imminent death or great bodily harm; is not a reasonable belief.

You should have watched the trial...first of all Drejka had not seen him take a step or two backwards ...that was not his perception at all.........and the expert witness on how to recognize a viable threat explained in detail that what the black did should not be considered retreating...merely repositoning himself and presenting a smaller target by turning some what to the left.

The key point you are missing is that in reality the thug was still close enough to pose a threat to his victim...very close ...well within striking distance if he wanted to rush his victim and wrestle the gun away from him and then commence to beat him.

You cannot accurately predict what the thug might have done if Drejka had not shot him. If he meant to retreat he should have taken off running and he would still be alive today...there is however a big possibility he did not want to retreat but to attack again.

Again you must remember he was under the influence and not rational. No rational man will storm out of a store and attack a stranger for just being in a argument with his wife. A reasonable person would try to figure out what was going on....no not him he just rushed out and attacked ...no questions asked.

His perception doesn't fucking matter!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Lookee here eienstein.....Drejka initiated no confrontation. He got out of his vehicle saw the other vehicle parked in a handicap spot....he checked the back of that car for a handicap placard and did not see one. Then he was checking the front of the car for a handicap placard when the black bitch rolled down her window and went off on drejka(if she was so scared as she claimed why did she roll down the window?) before the bitch rolled down the window due to the fact they were tinted drejka had no idea the vehicle was even occupied.

Drejka explained that due to the fact he has a handicapped family member people illegally parking in handicap spots is a pet peeve of his.

It was not that long ago the local news had ran a special on how so many people violate the handicap parking. So it is a big problem that a lot of people are concerned about.

During the jury selection process several potential jurors were dismissed because they voiced a concern about people violating handicap spots.

But it's not an offense punishable by DEATH and neither is pushing someone. smh Drejka should have called 911 if he was so upset. We all have pet peeves, but we all don't take the law into our own hands and cause a confrontation while armed.

Lookee here shit for brains....there is something known as the law on self defense....ever heard of it?

Drejka was not upset...he was calmly checking out the car to see if it had any handicap placards when the black bitch rolled down her window and went off on him. She is the one mainly responsible for the whole mess. Her drugged up boyfriend coming in second.

What would you do if some black thug came up and violently shoved you to the ground...let me guess....rolled over and cried?

What would you have done if after knocking you to the ground he then started kicking you in the head? Most likely died. How many videos circulate on the internet showing black thugs beating someone down and then kicking them in the head over and over. Not uncommon at all. You should take a course in how to think properly.

Pulling the gun was understandable. Pulling the trigger is manslaughter.

Obviously you cannot wrap your head around the fact that taking two steps back and turning to his side to present a smaller target is not retreating.

He was still in striking distance and still posed a deadly threat to Michael as we have seen time and again black thugs kicking their hapless victims to death.

It is retreating to anyone who is not fucking mentally retarded!

Again you did not watch the trial thus you are ignorant of all the testimony. You have demonstrated as well on this very board that you are prone to lying and have very poor judgement thus your opinion is not worth a bucket of piss. All the info you have is based on a slow motion video...ridiculous.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

"It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back."

The jury called it retreating.

But surveillance video shows McGlockton taking several steps back in the moments before the fatal shot -- a point on which police have challenged Drejka.​

"Thus I see no conviction."

Yet one more thing you're wrong about...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-stand-your-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp]Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial

The appeal will be sure to get an impartial judge that will actually allow the defense some room and it will be overturned so you bloody ghouls will have to jerk to some other miscarriage of justice.

LOLOL

What make you think an appeal is going to alter the video showing McGlockton retreating?

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

You said the appeal judge would allow the defense more leeway. That doesn't and cannot happen, dumbass!

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Everyone notice that I said no such thing. This lying garbage is just spinning and deflecting like always.

I didn't say you said it. Jeez, you're a freaking moron.

I asked you what is going to change the outcome since he was convicted on the video evidence showing McGlockton was retreating.

Sadly, you couldn't answer and gave that retarded response instead.

You are not only ignorant of the law on self defense you a exceedingly shallow thinker.

The law on simple self defense has always been based on the perception of the one under attack...if he 'reasonably' believes his life is in danger or that he may suffer grievious bodily injury then he is entitled to use lethal force.'

There is no reason to believe that he was not in reasonable fear of his life and in fact there is every reason to believe he was.

He had been violently shoved to the ground resulting in an injury to his right arm, causing him to be dazed and in a state of shock. The black dude continued to advance on him after he had shoved him to the ground.....why? Obviously he meant to continue the attack.

Fortunately for Drejka he was able to get his weapon out despite having his right arm injuredl,being dazed, disoriented and no doubt in a state of at least mild shock.


The attacker upon seeing the weapon come out was also shocked...he had sized up his victim on exiting the store and thought he would be a easy target--but lo and behold he has a gun...he recoiled at the sight of the weapon --backing up for a step or two but still facing his victim. He turned slightly but was still in striking distance of the victim. Thus still a threat.

This was all brought out in the trial but the jury must have been napping.

The victim with the help of his left hand manages to bring the weapon up and sight it....he did not have the benefit of a slow motion camera and did not see his attacker step slightly backward...his perception was that the attacker still posed a threat--one needs to remember this all happened very fast. And indeed it was very possible that the black thug might have decided to rush him. Not like it has not happened before....remember the black dude was doped up and in his state of altered reality there is telling what he might have done.

One thing for sure he had not retreated to enough of a distance to no longer pose a threat.

Unfortunately, the Jury did not appreciate how fast all of this happened....being misled by watching it frame by frame in slow motion. They did not grasp how quickly Drejka had to decide to shoot or not to shoot....and in fear of his life and or further bodily injury he pulled the trigger.

No basis to assume he was not in reasonable fear of his life after all that.

Thus the jury got it wrong

Now we see all this idiotic monday morning quarterbacking by folks who have not only the luxury of hindsight but also of a slow motion video and thus they also draw erroneous conclusions.

A terrible miscarriage of justice has occured and it will have ramifications as has been pointed out....essentially-- altering the basic concept of self-defense which has always been based on the perception of the victim.

Hopefully on appeal this b.s. will get rectified.

I guess you were too stupid to understand it the first time.

Believing a person who is in retreat is threatening imminent death or great bodily harm; is not a reasonable belief.

You should have watched the trial...first of all Drejka had not seen him take a step or two backwards ...that was not his perception at all.........and the expert witness on how to recognize a viable threat explained in detail that what the black did should not be considered retreating...merely repositoning himself and presenting a smaller target by turning some what to the left.

The key point you are missing is that in reality the thug was still close enough to pose a threat to his victim...very close ...well within striking distance if he wanted to rush his victim and wrestle the gun away from him and then commence to beat him.

You cannot accurately predict what the thug might have done if Drejka had not shot him. If he meant to retreat he should have taken off running and he would still be alive today...there is however a big possibility he did not want to retreat but to attack again.

Again you must remember he was under the influence and not rational. No rational man will storm out of a store and attack a stranger for just being in a argument with his wife. A reasonable person would try to figure out what was going on....no not him he just rushed out and attacked ...no questions asked.

His perception doesn't fucking matter!

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the law on self defense....it has always been based on the perception of the one under attack.....whether or not he reasonably believed or perceived his life was in danger or not. Take a hike...read the law on self defense and get back with us after you have some knowledge of what constitutes the law on self defense.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But it's not an offense punishable by DEATH and neither is pushing someone. smh Drejka should have called 911 if he was so upset. We all have pet peeves, but we all don't take the law into our own hands and cause a confrontation while armed.

Lookee here shit for brains....there is something known as the law on self defense....ever heard of it?

Drejka was not upset...he was calmly checking out the car to see if it had any handicap placards when the black bitch rolled down her window and went off on him. She is the one mainly responsible for the whole mess. Her drugged up boyfriend coming in second.

What would you do if some black thug came up and violently shoved you to the ground...let me guess....rolled over and cried?

What would you have done if after knocking you to the ground he then started kicking you in the head? Most likely died. How many videos circulate on the internet showing black thugs beating someone down and then kicking them in the head over and over. Not uncommon at all. You should take a course in how to think properly.

Pulling the gun was understandable. Pulling the trigger is manslaughter.

Obviously you cannot wrap your head around the fact that taking two steps back and turning to his side to present a smaller target is not retreating.

He was still in striking distance and still posed a deadly threat to Michael as we have seen time and again black thugs kicking their hapless victims to death.

It is retreating to anyone who is not fucking mentally retarded!

Again you did not watch the trial thus you are ignorant of all the testimony. You have demonstrated as well on this very board that you are prone to lying and have very poor judgement thus your opinion is not worth a bucket of piss. All the info you have is based on a slow motion video...ridiculous.

Apparently you watched the trial and yet know nothing about the law. I find that typical of airhead racist cop wannabees!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I didn't say you said it. Jeez, you're a freaking moron.

I asked you what is going to change the outcome since he was convicted on the video evidence showing McGlockton was retreating.

Sadly, you couldn't answer and gave that retarded response instead.

You are not only ignorant of the law on self defense you a exceedingly shallow thinker.

The law on simple self defense has always been based on the perception of the one under attack...if he 'reasonably' believes his life is in danger or that he may suffer grievious bodily injury then he is entitled to use lethal force.'

There is no reason to believe that he was not in reasonable fear of his life and in fact there is every reason to believe he was.

He had been violently shoved to the ground resulting in an injury to his right arm, causing him to be dazed and in a state of shock. The black dude continued to advance on him after he had shoved him to the ground.....why? Obviously he meant to continue the attack.

Fortunately for Drejka he was able to get his weapon out despite having his right arm injuredl,being dazed, disoriented and no doubt in a state of at least mild shock.


The attacker upon seeing the weapon come out was also shocked...he had sized up his victim on exiting the store and thought he would be a easy target--but lo and behold he has a gun...he recoiled at the sight of the weapon --backing up for a step or two but still facing his victim. He turned slightly but was still in striking distance of the victim. Thus still a threat.

This was all brought out in the trial but the jury must have been napping.

The victim with the help of his left hand manages to bring the weapon up and sight it....he did not have the benefit of a slow motion camera and did not see his attacker step slightly backward...his perception was that the attacker still posed a threat--one needs to remember this all happened very fast. And indeed it was very possible that the black thug might have decided to rush him. Not like it has not happened before....remember the black dude was doped up and in his state of altered reality there is telling what he might have done.

One thing for sure he had not retreated to enough of a distance to no longer pose a threat.

Unfortunately, the Jury did not appreciate how fast all of this happened....being misled by watching it frame by frame in slow motion. They did not grasp how quickly Drejka had to decide to shoot or not to shoot....and in fear of his life and or further bodily injury he pulled the trigger.

No basis to assume he was not in reasonable fear of his life after all that.

Thus the jury got it wrong

Now we see all this idiotic monday morning quarterbacking by folks who have not only the luxury of hindsight but also of a slow motion video and thus they also draw erroneous conclusions.

A terrible miscarriage of justice has occured and it will have ramifications as has been pointed out....essentially-- altering the basic concept of self-defense which has always been based on the perception of the victim.

Hopefully on appeal this b.s. will get rectified.

I guess you were too stupid to understand it the first time.

Believing a person who is in retreat is threatening imminent death or great bodily harm; is not a reasonable belief.

You should have watched the trial...first of all Drejka had not seen him take a step or two backwards ...that was not his perception at all.........and the expert witness on how to recognize a viable threat explained in detail that what the black did should not be considered retreating...merely repositoning himself and presenting a smaller target by turning some what to the left.

The key point you are missing is that in reality the thug was still close enough to pose a threat to his victim...very close ...well within striking distance if he wanted to rush his victim and wrestle the gun away from him and then commence to beat him.

You cannot accurately predict what the thug might have done if Drejka had not shot him. If he meant to retreat he should have taken off running and he would still be alive today...there is however a big possibility he did not want to retreat but to attack again.

Again you must remember he was under the influence and not rational. No rational man will storm out of a store and attack a stranger for just being in a argument with his wife. A reasonable person would try to figure out what was going on....no not him he just rushed out and attacked ...no questions asked.

His perception doesn't fucking matter!

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the law on self defense....it has always been based on the perception of the one under attack.....whether he perceived his life was in danger or not. Take a hike...read the law on self defense and get back with us after you have some knowledge of what constitutes the law on self defense.

I will do that after you. You still don't understand the difference in simple self-defence and the Stand Your Ground law. You are using them interchangeably and saying they are different. Make up your mind, twit!

Do you even live in FL or is this piqued your interest because you are a racist asshole?