We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.
Oh, for ****'s sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting,
"another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.
Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.
Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.
And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.
This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.
Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.
And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.
You lack of a good analytical ability interferes with your perception of the reality of this case. Aka...what and how it all went down. Obviously you have never been under attack as well.
First of all--the law on self defense has always centered on the perception of the victim aka whether or not the victim has a reasonable belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.
The key element in this case is of course whether or not the drugged up black thug was actually retreating.
The next thing to consider is what constitutes retreating?
Now as we have seen the video was slowed down to the slow motion mode for the jurors and in slow motion mode the following can be seen: first of all of course the black thug high on drugs as proved in court by toxicology reports rushes out of the store after a white guy comes in and says there is a problem on the parking lot.
Now what is the first thing seen by the thug on exiting the store---a white dude arguing with his g/f. The black guy does not ask any questions, does not try to find out what the argument is about as would any reasonable person...he just rushes up and violently assaults the white guy.
And then.....this is critical........and then...he continues to advance towards the white guy he has knocked to the ground. Why did he continue to advance? Obviously he meant to do more harm to his victim i.e. kick him in the head or whatever....we have all seen the videos of scenarios like this...some black thug or a gang of black thugs beating some hapless victim to death...these videos are all over the internet...and it is reasonable to conclude the Drejka had seen such vidieos.
It is highly likely that after getting knocked to the ground that his first thought was that his assailant would do to him like what he had seen happen to other victims in his situation...on the ground and highly vulnurable to further attacks by his assailant.
The video then shows Drejka manage with some difficulty to get his weapon out as his right arm had been injured in the assault. Upon sight of the weapon the black guy stops his advance and in slow motion you can see he takes a couple of halting backward steps whilst still facing his victim and then turning slightly in order to present a smaller target.
Now the question arises was he actually 'retreating' and that is the basis on which the prosecution was able to sway the jury to vote for a conviction....that the perp was retreating from the scene of his crime...but was he?
The defense brought in a expert witness a black guy with much experience and knowledge of what constitutes self defense,body language and retreat.
He made a very good case that the black guy was not retreating and that he remained within striking distance of his victim....which means that if he so wanted he could have easily rushed the defendant and continued his assault.
Now we must not forget he was high on drugs and in such a impaired condition it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what he might have done if he had not got shot.
Meanwhile, of course his victim was dazed, disoriented, injured and undoubtedly in a mild state of shock at least. He did realize that if he wanted to protect his life that he had to make a very fast decision.
He only had a couple of seconds to make this life or death decision and in such a state of disorientation and stress he chose to shoot and anyone who has been in such a similar life threatening scenario knows that one misses a lot of details in such a scenario and that their main objective being-- to get the weapon out and prepare to fire it --which means getting the weapon into a firing mode, clicking the safety off, aligning and sighting the weapon on his assailant and then pulling the trigger.
Whilst being focused on doing all that it is not to be reasonably expected that the victim would note the movement of his assailants feet. He is aiming his weapon at the center mass of his victim...lining up the sights on the gun and then pulling the trigger. All this takes some time and a lot of concentration on his target.
Now most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them, why wait around to get shot? Makes no sense. But as we know the thug with a history of assault was high on a couple of drugs....thus his judgement was impaired.
The very drugs that very likely had put him into such an aggressive mode also prevented him from understanding that he needed to flee in order to avoid getting shot. Like you see his buddy running to hide behind some cars as soon as he sees the weapon pulled out.
Anyhow for whatever reason he does not retreat until he is shot then he takes off running....that is actually retreating but he waited too long to do that. It cost him his life.
