Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[Faun]

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.

"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..."

That is incorrect. He is seen on the video backing up even before Drejka pulled his gun out. Before drawing his gun, Drejka reached in his clothes for it. It was then that McGlockton began backing up, taking 2 steps backwards. THEN Drejka brandishes his firearm, at which point McGlockton takes 2 more steps backwards and begins turning. That took about 4 seconds to transpire. Drejka had ample opportunity to see McGlockton was backing away from him.

As far as McGlockton being on drugs, that's irrelevant from Drejka's perspective because he had no knowledge of McGlockton's toxicology.

As far as McGlockton potentially lunging at Drejka, that didn't happen and McGlockton was far enough away that Drejka, his firearm trained on McGlockton, would have had an opportunity to shoot had McGlockton actually lunged at him.

And you're getting g many facts of this case wrong.

You claim McGlockton only took 1 or 2 steps back; when in fact, he took 4.

You claim Drejka didn't see him stepping back; when in fact, the video shows Drejka looking directly at McGlockton from the moment he sat up.

You claim McGlockton advanced on Drejka until he saw the firearm; when in fact, he began backing up the moment Drejka reached for his weapon.

You cannot get those basic facts wrong and then claim you know better than the jury.

You are either lying or are simply ignorant of the facts. It is plainly seen in the video that the black does not begin to back up until the gun is displayed.

Whether he took 2 or 4 steps is irrelevant....the relevant point being he was still in striking distance and a potential threat.

The reasons drejka did not notice the black backing up have been explained.

Why do you think that drejkas lack of knowledge of the black guy being high on drugs makes any difference? Ridiculous thought on your part.

Damn...your reasoning is laughable...are you drinking?

Of course the black guy did not lunge but if he had not been shot he may have. There is no possible way you can accurately predict what he may or may not have done since he was so impaired with drugs you cannot expect him to act in a rational manner.

I watched the trial...you did not and that is very obvious.

"You are either lying or are simply ignorant of the facts. It is plainly seen in the video that the black does not begin to back up until the gun is displayed."

Nope, you're lying. It's plainly visible in the video I posted....

1:46 - McGlockton shoves Drejka, knocking him to the ground

1:48 - Drejka sits up and is looking directly at McGlockton

1:49 - Drejka, still looking at McGlockton, reaches into his clothes. McGlockton sees this and takes 2 steps backwards.

1:50 - Drejka pulls out a gun while still looking at McGlockton. McGlockton takes 2 mores steps backwards

1:51 - McGlockton turns away from Drejka to his right

1:52 - Drejka shoots McGlockton on his left side.​

... it's on video. McGlockton starts backing away when he sees Drejka reaching into his pocket, before the gun is drawn.

That you deny what's plainly visible goes a long way in explaining why you're so wrong with your assessment.

That video is not really helping your argument as fast as it goes. Not saying I disagree, just that it runs too fast to properly support your argument.

Sorry, Mary, it's not my fault you are blind.

 

[SavannahMann]

Moron thinks I'm a liberal.

Well, yes you sounded like a liberal but actually are even worse I see now....you are a fuckin politically correct republican.

I have more respect for liberals than pc republicans. At least the liberals are honest about their idiocy.

PC republicans think they are conservative and no doubt want others to think that but they simply cannot measure up to that standard.

So your definition of Conservative requires a hatred of the Constitution? I say that because it has been a normal standard that actions, especially actions that result in deaths, are reviewed by the Justice System. The trial by a jury of your peers. The Government can not declare you guilty. Only the Jury can.

In the end all of us can face that judgement. We are expected to show restraint. Shouting over and over again that the law says reasonable misses the entire point. The jury decided it was not reasonable. The Grand Jury decides to indict. The Jury decided to convict.

Personally I agree with the decision. I don’t believe it was a reasonable fear. I do not believe that he should have fired. The Jury Foreman agreed. Or perhaps I could say i agreed with him.

So why do you hate the Constitution?

Ridiculous...it constantly amazes me that so many posters have no analytical ability whatsoever. You are terribly coinfused.

What makes you think I think a defintion of conservatism requires a hatred of the constitution???

Anyhow and first of all it is a well known fact that juries make mistakes....that is beyond dispute.

My efforts on here have been two-fold in essence....to explain as best I can the Florida Law on Self defense and how the jury was in error....as in they did not follow the law.

I contend they were misled by the prosecutor...a very skilled person...who obviously knows how to manipulate juries....the guy was incredible in fact.

And, I am sorry to say unlike the defense team.

Drejka should have hired Omara and if he had done so he would probably not be sitting in a lonely jail cell tonight. Vey sad.

But back to why I think the jury was in error.

I am convinced they voted to convict because of their perception of the video.

They were convinced the black thug was retreating and thus posed no threat.

To that I say bullshit.

Why do I say that? Because the Florida law on self-defense says that to be justified to use deadly force one must be in REASONABLE fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

The Jury I am convinced did not attempt to ascertain the actual perception of the defendant.

They voted to convict based on their perception of the video.

They entirely neglected to try and understand the perception of the defandant....aka....whether or not he he had a REASONABLE fear of his life.

I have posted all the reasons why drejka should have been considered to be in fear of his life or of grievious bodily injury. Thus I will not go into all that again...it is all posted if you want to read it.

I posted the interview with the jury foreman. You should have read it. The video damned Drejka.

 

[SavannahMann]

Oh, for fuck'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.

The decision if the belief is reasonable is made by a Jury of your peers. It is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Your actions are always judged by another. Non confrontational is always best when you are armed. The Jury listened to the testimony, and found the video compelling.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

There is a saying. It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Drejka did not need to have either done. He could have minded his own business and walked into the store. No incident would have occurred. No one knocked down. No one dead. No one in prison. It is how I behave when I am carrying.

Drejka could have kept his mouth shut with the cops. Another stupid mistake. What surprises me is not the verdict. But the apparent miracle that Drejka has somehow lucked out of ending up in prison so far.you
That is practically a miracle of epic proportions.

Well you make some good points.

I had not heard the jury foreman was making comments....but if it is true what you quote him as saying then it meshes with what I said regarding why they the jury were in error.

They based their vote to convict based on their perception of the video.

It should not have been based on their perception of anything other than whether or not drejka had a REASONABLE fear of his life being in danger or of grievious bodily harm.

I have posted all the reasons Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of hls life. So I will not go over all that again.

The jury made a huge huge mistake.

But is it is not the first jury to do so and it will not be the last...yet I sill strongly believe in the jury system.

And that is the rub. The Jury felt it was reasonable to pull Sam Colt. At that point the situation changed. The “attacker” backed away. Turning even as the shots were fired. Drejka was not a speed draw champion. There was a second. Or more.

Like you Drejka was outraged. How dare this punk knock me down. I am in the right. This woman should not be in that parking space.

Honestly. If I had been there. I would have gotten behind cover and pulled my own pistol ordering Drejka to drop his gun. Because that shooting was not justified. It was not reasonable.

 

[BigTruck]

Some of you assholes just refuse to believe it’s murder when a black person killed without actual justification.

You think the black skin is the justification.

Go fuck yourselves.

First of all he was not convicted of murder (a legal term btw) he was convicted of manslaughter.

I have posted all the reasons drejka should have been considered in reasonable fear of his life or of grievious bodily injury.

Legal words don’t matter at this point. It was murder.

Your only justification for the murder is the fact that he shot a black man as evidenced by the fact you feel the need to call the victim a black thug instead of a thug.

 

[BigTruck]

The video clearly shows the victim backing away well before a shot was fired. It was murder.

You racist assholes need to shut the fuck up.

 

[Flash]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

The decision if the belief is reasonable is made by a Jury of your peers. It is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Your actions are always judged by another. Non confrontational is always best when you are armed. The Jury listened to the testimony, and found the video compelling.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

There is a saying. It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Drejka did not need to have either done. He could have minded his own business and walked into the store. No incident would have occurred. No one knocked down. No one dead. No one in prison. It is how I behave when I am carrying.

Drejka could have kept his mouth shut with the cops. Another stupid mistake. What surprises me is not the verdict. But the apparent miracle that Drejka has somehow lucked out of ending up in prison so far.you
That is practically a miracle of epic proportions.

Well you make some good points.

I had not heard the jury foreman was making comments....but if it is true what you quote him as saying then it meshes with what I said regarding why they the jury were in error.

They based their vote to convict based on their perception of the video.

It should not have been based on their perception of anything other than whether or not drejka had a REASONABLE fear of his life being in danger or of grievious bodily harm.

I have posted all the reasons Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of hls life. So I will not go over all that again.

The jury made a huge huge mistake.

But is it is not the first jury to do so and it will not be the last...yet I sill strongly believe in the jury system.

And that is the rub. The Jury felt it was reasonable to pull Sam Colt. At that point the situation changed. The “attacker” backed away. Turning even as the shots were fired. Drejka was not a speed draw champion. There was a second. Or more.

Like you Drejka was outraged. How dare this punk knock me down. I am in the right. This woman should not be in that parking space.

Honestly. If I had been there. I would have gotten behind cover and pulled my own pistol ordering Drejka to drop his gun. Because that shooting was not justified. It was not reasonable.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion no matter how lame it is.

Again...and I am only covering this again because I have a little free time..... it has been gone over and over ....anyhow your perception is simply based on ignorance as in you cannot wrap your head around the fact that backing up a couple of steps and turning sideways was not a retreat...he was simply reacting to the weapon...much like someone touching a hot stove and the reflex action of snatching your hand back without even thinking.

Now of course there are different ways of analyzing the black guys behavior and as has been pointed out intelligent people see it differently...some say that he was retreating and the more intelligent saying obviously not...as in if he had taken off running that would have been retreating and he would not have been shot. But no he just stood there like a idiot...waiting....for what --to get shot--not reasonable behavior.

Most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them yet this guy did not run until he got shot. A tad late...so why did he not run? Well, you must remember he was high as shown by the toxicolgy reports...a high--very high level of 2 drugs were in his system.

It has been shown and was shown in the trial that the drug known by its street name of

ectasy ---causes extreme aggressiveness in some people...and it is very possible even likely the drug was what motivated the black guys agressiveness aka.......charging out of the store and assaulting Drejka...and it is highly likely also that it prevented him from actually retreating aka running to a safe place or a safe distance. He simply failed to react in a normal manner...remained very close to his victim ...so close he still posed a threat and thus put Drejka in a reasonable fear of his life.

Also note in the video there was a white dude hot on the heels of the black guy as he came out of the store....no one knows for sure why he was following the black guy....perhaps to assist him.....anyhow you will note as soon as the gun came out he ran and hid behind some cars....now that is actual retreating....big difference...why is that? Most likely because the white dude was not on drugs and reacted the way any reasonable person would....go to a place of safety.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

Are you clairvoyant? One would have to be to be able to predict how the jury would have reacted to all the evidence if they had reviewed and discussed it.

The big blunder of the jury was simply that they focused solely on the video as instructed by the prosecutor....anyone that actually watched the trial would have noted in his summation he kept saying over and over watch the video, watch the video....it goes without saying that of course they would watch the video....but why did he keep emphasizing that? Simply to distract the jury from their real obligation of evaluating all the evidence and get them to focus just on the video.

Which of course they did and the recent statement by the jury foreman proves that and that is why they were in error. They did not review all the evidence much of which would have shown that drejka was in a reasonable fear of his life.

The jury convicted drejka based on their perception of the video...a video which is viewed differently by intelligent people.

Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable.

Unfortunately the jury focused on their perception and ignored the evidence that supported drejka being in reasonable fear of his life.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

 

[TheGreenHornet]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

Are you clairvoyant? One would have to be to be able to predict how the jury would have reacted to all the evidence if they had reviewed and discussed it.

The big blunder of the jury was simply that they focused solely on the video as instructed by the prosecutor....anyone that actually watched the trial would have noted in his summation he kept saying over and over watch the video, watch the video....it goes without saying that of course they would watch the video....but why did he keep emphasizing that? Simply to distract the jury from their real obligation of evaluating all the evidence and get them to focus just on the video.

Which of course they did and the recent statement by the jury foreman proves that and that is why they were in error. They did not review all the evidence much of which would have shown that drejka was in a reasonable fear of his life.

The jury convicted drejka based on their perception of the video...a video which is viewed differently by intelligent people.

Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable.

Unfortunately the jury focused on their perception and ignored the evidence that supported drejka being in reasonable fear of his life.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

The jury foreman sounds like a fag and defitnitely a idiot.

 

[PredFan]

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

I think you are a little confused.

First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.

Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the bitch was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.

Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.

Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.

Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?

This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.

Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!

Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.

Plenty of dumbassery to go around.

Had I been on the jury, it would have been a no-brainer. The video shows it very clear, McGlockton backed away and turned to get away. Drejka has an eternity to decide to shoot or not. On the jury I would have needed to hear or see evidence that disproved what the video clearly showed. Unless I did, he's guilty.

Did you listen to all the evidence? If not you don't know then you are rushing to judgement. I agree that the video was compelling but there was other evidence. Like you I made up my mind based on just one piece of evidence. Had I been on the jury and listened to everything I may have though differently.

I have been on juries before including one for murder. You never know how juries think until you get in the room with them.

No, but what I gave you was a hypothetical. “Had I been on the jury” I would have needed to see or hear something that contradicted what the video clearly showed. If I did not, he would be guilty.

 

[Faun]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

Are you clairvoyant? One would have to be to be able to predict how the jury would have reacted to all the evidence if they had reviewed and discussed it.

The big blunder of the jury was simply that they focused solely on the video as instructed by the prosecutor....anyone that actually watched the trial would have noted in his summation he kept saying over and over watch the video, watch the video....it goes without saying that of course they would watch the video....but why did he keep emphasizing that? Simply to distract the jury from their real obligation of evaluating all the evidence and get them to focus just on the video.

Which of course they did and the recent statement by the jury foreman proves that and that is why they were in error. They did not review all the evidence much of which would have shown that drejka was in a reasonable fear of his life.

The jury convicted drejka based on their perception of the video...a video which is viewed differently by intelligent people.

Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable.

Unfortunately the jury focused on their perception and ignored the evidence that supported drejka being in reasonable fear of his life.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

The jury foreman sounds like a fag and defitnitely a idiot.

"Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable."

Your reasons were built on a foundation of falsehoods.

 

[Flash]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

Are you clairvoyant? One would have to be to be able to predict how the jury would have reacted to all the evidence if they had reviewed and discussed it.

The big blunder of the jury was simply that they focused solely on the video as instructed by the prosecutor....anyone that actually watched the trial would have noted in his summation he kept saying over and over watch the video, watch the video....it goes without saying that of course they would watch the video....but why did he keep emphasizing that? Simply to distract the jury from their real obligation of evaluating all the evidence and get them to focus just on the video.

Which of course they did and the recent statement by the jury foreman proves that and that is why they were in error. They did not review all the evidence much of which would have shown that drejka was in a reasonable fear of his life.

The jury convicted drejka based on their perception of the video...a video which is viewed differently by intelligent people.

Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable.

Unfortunately the jury focused on their perception and ignored the evidence that supported drejka being in reasonable fear of his life.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

So the jury found differently that you would have? Damn that sucks, doesn't it? Life is not fair is it? If only you would have been on the jury then justice would have been served.

Now you know how I felt after I watched all of the Casey Anthony trial and knew she was guilty but then the jury let her off the hook for murdering her precious little girl.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

The decision if the belief is reasonable is made by a Jury of your peers. It is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Your actions are always judged by another. Non confrontational is always best when you are armed. The Jury listened to the testimony, and found the video compelling.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

There is a saying. It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Drejka did not need to have either done. He could have minded his own business and walked into the store. No incident would have occurred. No one knocked down. No one dead. No one in prison. It is how I behave when I am carrying.

Drejka could have kept his mouth shut with the cops. Another stupid mistake. What surprises me is not the verdict. But the apparent miracle that Drejka has somehow lucked out of ending up in prison so far.you
That is practically a miracle of epic proportions.

Well you make some good points.

I had not heard the jury foreman was making comments....but if it is true what you quote him as saying then it meshes with what I said regarding why they the jury were in error.

They based their vote to convict based on their perception of the video.

It should not have been based on their perception of anything other than whether or not drejka had a REASONABLE fear of his life being in danger or of grievious bodily harm.

I have posted all the reasons Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of hls life. So I will not go over all that again.

The jury made a huge huge mistake.

But is it is not the first jury to do so and it will not be the last...yet I sill strongly believe in the jury system.

And that is the rub. The Jury felt it was reasonable to pull Sam Colt. At that point the situation changed. The “attacker” backed away. Turning even as the shots were fired. Drejka was not a speed draw champion. There was a second. Or more.

Like you Drejka was outraged. How dare this punk knock me down. I am in the right. This woman should not be in that parking space.

Honestly. If I had been there. I would have gotten behind cover and pulled my own pistol ordering Drejka to drop his gun. Because that shooting was not justified. It was not reasonable.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion no matter how lame it is.

Again...and I am only covering this again because I have a little free time..... it has been gone over and over ....anyhow your perception is simply based on ignorance as in you cannot wrap your head around the fact that backing up a couple of steps and turning sideways was not a retreat...he was simply reacting to the weapon...much like someone touching a hot stove and the reflex action of snatching your hand back without even thinking.

Now of course there are different ways of analyzing the black guys behavior and as has been pointed out intelligent people see it differently...some say that he was retreating and the more intelligent saying obviously not...as in if he had taken off running that would have been retreating and he would not have been shot. But no he just stood there like a idiot...waiting....for what --to get shot--not reasonable behavior.

Most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them yet this guy did not run until he got shot. A tad late...so why did he not run? Well, you must remember he was high as shown by the toxicolgy reports...a high--very high level of 2 drugs were in his system.

It has been shown and was shown in the trial that the drug known by its street name of

ectasy ---causes extreme aggressiveness in some people...and it is very possible even likely the drug was what motivated the black guys agressiveness aka.......charging out of the store and assaulting Drejka...and it is highly likely also that it prevented him from actually retreating aka running to a safe place or a safe distance. He simply failed to react in a normal manner...remained very close to his victim ...so close he still posed a threat and thus put Drejka in a reasonable fear of his life.

Also note in the video there was a white dude hot on the heels of the black guy as he came out of the store....no one knows for sure why he was following the black guy....perhaps to assist him.....anyhow you will note as soon as the gun came out he ran and hid behind some cars....now that is actual retreating....big difference...why is that? Most likely because the white dude was not on drugs and reacted the way any reasonable person would....go to a place of safety.

Baloney. First Drejka had no idea about the drugs. So using that as a claim to justify the obviously unreasonable act of shooting is a huge fail. The Jury heard it, and decided in six hours that the shooting was unreasonable.

The fact that he was not half a mile away shows diddly squat.

The Jury got it tight, and I doubt that Drejka will see any relief from any appeals.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

The decision if the belief is reasonable is made by a Jury of your peers. It is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Your actions are always judged by another. Non confrontational is always best when you are armed. The Jury listened to the testimony, and found the video compelling.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

There is a saying. It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Drejka did not need to have either done. He could have minded his own business and walked into the store. No incident would have occurred. No one knocked down. No one dead. No one in prison. It is how I behave when I am carrying.

Drejka could have kept his mouth shut with the cops. Another stupid mistake. What surprises me is not the verdict. But the apparent miracle that Drejka has somehow lucked out of ending up in prison so far.you
That is practically a miracle of epic proportions.

Well you make some good points.

I had not heard the jury foreman was making comments....but if it is true what you quote him as saying then it meshes with what I said regarding why they the jury were in error.

They based their vote to convict based on their perception of the video.

It should not have been based on their perception of anything other than whether or not drejka had a REASONABLE fear of his life being in danger or of grievious bodily harm.

I have posted all the reasons Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of hls life. So I will not go over all that again.

The jury made a huge huge mistake.

But is it is not the first jury to do so and it will not be the last...yet I sill strongly believe in the jury system.

And that is the rub. The Jury felt it was reasonable to pull Sam Colt. At that point the situation changed. The “attacker” backed away. Turning even as the shots were fired. Drejka was not a speed draw champion. There was a second. Or more.

Like you Drejka was outraged. How dare this punk knock me down. I am in the right. This woman should not be in that parking space.

Honestly. If I had been there. I would have gotten behind cover and pulled my own pistol ordering Drejka to drop his gun. Because that shooting was not justified. It was not reasonable.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion no matter how lame it is.

Again...and I am only covering this again because I have a little free time..... it has been gone over and over ....anyhow your perception is simply based on ignorance as in you cannot wrap your head around the fact that backing up a couple of steps and turning sideways was not a retreat...he was simply reacting to the weapon...much like someone touching a hot stove and the reflex action of snatching your hand back without even thinking.

Now of course there are different ways of analyzing the black guys behavior and as has been pointed out intelligent people see it differently...some say that he was retreating and the more intelligent saying obviously not...as in if he had taken off running that would have been retreating and he would not have been shot. But no he just stood there like a idiot...waiting....for what --to get shot--not reasonable behavior.

Most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them yet this guy did not run until he got shot. A tad late...so why did he not run? Well, you must remember he was high as shown by the toxicolgy reports...a high--very high level of 2 drugs were in his system.

It has been shown and was shown in the trial that the drug known by its street name of

ectasy ---causes extreme aggressiveness in some people...and it is very possible even likely the drug was what motivated the black guys agressiveness aka.......charging out of the store and assaulting Drejka...and it is highly likely also that it prevented him from actually retreating aka running to a safe place or a safe distance. He simply failed to react in a normal manner...remained very close to his victim ...so close he still posed a threat and thus put Drejka in a reasonable fear of his life.

Also note in the video there was a white dude hot on the heels of the black guy as he came out of the store....no one knows for sure why he was following the black guy....perhaps to assist him.....anyhow you will note as soon as the gun came out he ran and hid behind some cars....now that is actual retreating....big difference...why is that? Most likely because the white dude was not on drugs and reacted the way any reasonable person would....go to a place of safety.

Baloney. First Drejka had no idea about the drugs. So using that as a claim to justify the obviously unreasonable act of shooting is a huge fail. The Jury heard it, and decided in six hours that the shooting was unreasonable.

The fact that he was not half a mile away shows diddly squat.

The Jury got it tight, and I doubt that Drejka will see any relief from any appeals.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

The decision if the belief is reasonable is made by a Jury of your peers. It is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Your actions are always judged by another. Non confrontational is always best when you are armed. The Jury listened to the testimony, and found the video compelling.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

There is a saying. It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Drejka did not need to have either done. He could have minded his own business and walked into the store. No incident would have occurred. No one knocked down. No one dead. No one in prison. It is how I behave when I am carrying.

Drejka could have kept his mouth shut with the cops. Another stupid mistake. What surprises me is not the verdict. But the apparent miracle that Drejka has somehow lucked out of ending up in prison so far.you
That is practically a miracle of epic proportions.

Well you make some good points.

I had not heard the jury foreman was making comments....but if it is true what you quote him as saying then it meshes with what I said regarding why they the jury were in error.

They based their vote to convict based on their perception of the video.

It should not have been based on their perception of anything other than whether or not drejka had a REASONABLE fear of his life being in danger or of grievious bodily harm.

I have posted all the reasons Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of hls life. So I will not go over all that again.

The jury made a huge huge mistake.

But is it is not the first jury to do so and it will not be the last...yet I sill strongly believe in the jury system.

And that is the rub. The Jury felt it was reasonable to pull Sam Colt. At that point the situation changed. The “attacker” backed away. Turning even as the shots were fired. Drejka was not a speed draw champion. There was a second. Or more.

Like you Drejka was outraged. How dare this punk knock me down. I am in the right. This woman should not be in that parking space.

Honestly. If I had been there. I would have gotten behind cover and pulled my own pistol ordering Drejka to drop his gun. Because that shooting was not justified. It was not reasonable.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion no matter how lame it is.

Again...and I am only covering this again because I have a little free time..... it has been gone over and over ....anyhow your perception is simply based on ignorance as in you cannot wrap your head around the fact that backing up a couple of steps and turning sideways was not a retreat...he was simply reacting to the weapon...much like someone touching a hot stove and the reflex action of snatching your hand back without even thinking.

Now of course there are different ways of analyzing the black guys behavior and as has been pointed out intelligent people see it differently...some say that he was retreating and the more intelligent saying obviously not...as in if he had taken off running that would have been retreating and he would not have been shot. But no he just stood there like a idiot...waiting....for what --to get shot--not reasonable behavior.

Most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them yet this guy did not run until he got shot. A tad late...so why did he not run? Well, you must remember he was high as shown by the toxicolgy reports...a high--very high level of 2 drugs were in his system.

It has been shown and was shown in the trial that the drug known by its street name of

ectasy ---causes extreme aggressiveness in some people...and it is very possible even likely the drug was what motivated the black guys agressiveness aka.......charging out of the store and assaulting Drejka...and it is highly likely also that it prevented him from actually retreating aka running to a safe place or a safe distance. He simply failed to react in a normal manner...remained very close to his victim ...so close he still posed a threat and thus put Drejka in a reasonable fear of his life.

Also note in the video there was a white dude hot on the heels of the black guy as he came out of the store....no one knows for sure why he was following the black guy....perhaps to assist him.....anyhow you will note as soon as the gun came out he ran and hid behind some cars....now that is actual retreating....big difference...why is that? Most likely because the white dude was not on drugs and reacted the way any reasonable person would....go to a place of safety.

Baloney. First Drejka had no idea about the drugs. So using that as a claim to justify the obviously unreasonable act of shooting is a huge fail. The Jury heard it, and decided in six hours that the shooting was unreasonable.

The fact that he was not half a mile away shows diddly squat.

The Jury got it tight, and I doubt that Drejka will see any relief from any appeals.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa Dude you are some kinda stooopid. hehheh

You are a prime example of why so many read this board just for the comedic value.

Anyhow and irregardless of your severe shortage of any analytical ability whatsoever.

Let me take you to school............the fact the nigah was loaded with drugs is beyond dispute...the toxicology reports confirmed that and they were at a very high level in his system.

Of course drejka had no idea the muddabuckin idiot was on drugs and that is completely irrelevant.

No one has claimed drejka shot the nigah because he was on drugs.

Where did you get the crazy idea that drejka shot him because he was on drugs?????

You got some kinda movie running in your head?

Anyhow and irregardless.....the expert witness on the possible effects of the drugs in the nighas system proved conclusively in his testimony that the drug (ectasy) causes some people to become extremely aggressive.

Not even to mention the darlin darkie of the liberals had a history of assault...had been arrested for it before....thus he obviously had a propensity for violence.....add to that the fact he was on drugs....is what they call 'a perfect storm'.

All you have dumbass is your stupidity...why inflict that on this board? You should get the hell outta here and let the big boys handle this. hehheh

Before you run off let me explain to your dumb ass of what the significance of the drugs were....they could explain why the nigah was un-reasonably aggressive....no normal person that is not whacked out on drugs are something is going to assault someone just for talking and arguing with his wife

There is absolutely no excuse for the level of violence he exhibited. Now whether or not the drugs played any role in it is something that should be considered.

Now for the real significance for this case that the use of drugs could have played a role in is that it is not unreasonable to believe that this drugged up idiot had no intent to retreat...that he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka after he had slammed him to the ground and in the slow motion video you can observe him continuing to advance after he slammed drejka to the ground.....then he suddenly stops when he sees the weapon come out and recoils like someone whose finger touches a hot stove...jerking it back automatically without even consciously thinking that --oh I must take my finger off the stove...it is a instataneous automatic response.

Thus the black thug was not retreating at all...just recoiling from the sight of the gun....seeing the gun shocked him ...what a damn surprise that was no doubt. Thus his reflexes took over and he recoiled backwards. Then to present a smaller target he turned slightly sideways.

Yet he did not run off like the white dude that was hot on heels coming out of the store...when the white dude saw the weapon he ran and hid behind some cars....but not da nigah...he recoild backwards and just stood there till he got shot. What a fuckin idiot. If he had really retreated...taken off running he would be alive still.

So why didnt he retreat?...very possibly because he was in an impaired condition due to the drugs...he did not realize he should get the hell outta there and very quickly. No he did not retreat....and thus still posed a threat to drejka and a very reasonable threat it was-- especially because a drugged up violent nigha is capable of anything and it is entirely impossible to predict what they would do.

You and the other morons on here may be willing to gamble with your lives but drejka was not. Thus to insure his survival and or not to suffer any grievious bodily harm he pulled the trigger.

A lot of folks would have emptied the gun...me being one of them.

now piss of...enough of your stupidity. Be gone and do not let da screen door hit you where the good Lord split ya. hehheh

 

[TheGreenHornet]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

Are you clairvoyant? One would have to be to be able to predict how the jury would have reacted to all the evidence if they had reviewed and discussed it.

The big blunder of the jury was simply that they focused solely on the video as instructed by the prosecutor....anyone that actually watched the trial would have noted in his summation he kept saying over and over watch the video, watch the video....it goes without saying that of course they would watch the video....but why did he keep emphasizing that? Simply to distract the jury from their real obligation of evaluating all the evidence and get them to focus just on the video.

Which of course they did and the recent statement by the jury foreman proves that and that is why they were in error. They did not review all the evidence much of which would have shown that drejka was in a reasonable fear of his life.

The jury convicted drejka based on their perception of the video...a video which is viewed differently by intelligent people.

Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable.

Unfortunately the jury focused on their perception and ignored the evidence that supported drejka being in reasonable fear of his life.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

So the jury found differently that you would have? Damn that sucks, doesn't it? Life is not fair is it? If only you would have been on the jury then justice would have been served.

Now you know how I felt after I watched all of the Casey Anthony trial and knew she was guilty but then the jury let her off the hook for murdering her precious little girl.

Lookie here moron....this is not the first time a jury has gotten it wrong and it will not be the last.

But having said that...I will now say this and I have said it before...we are fortunate to have the jury system....would you want some lame ass judge to determine your guilt or innocence yet this 6 man jury system should be done away with....only floriday and connecticut use it. Much easier for the state to get a conviction with just 6 people on the jury.

A lot of folks talk about how sad this case is...one man dead and another in jail but I will tell you the saddest part of this whole mess.....Clearwater officials were willing to sacrifice a innocent man--one of their own citizens to kowtow to outside politgical operatives in order to protect Clearwater from any financial damage like a boycott etc. Which is what they were threatened with by those outside political operatives who got the media all whipped up.

Clearwater is a tourist town...heavily dependent on tourism...they realized that a lot bad publicity could inflict financial damage on the city.....thus they contrived to indict and convict a innocent man. I think it highly possible that the jury pool had been rigged in their favor.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

Are you clairvoyant? One would have to be to be able to predict how the jury would have reacted to all the evidence if they had reviewed and discussed it.

The big blunder of the jury was simply that they focused solely on the video as instructed by the prosecutor....anyone that actually watched the trial would have noted in his summation he kept saying over and over watch the video, watch the video....it goes without saying that of course they would watch the video....but why did he keep emphasizing that? Simply to distract the jury from their real obligation of evaluating all the evidence and get them to focus just on the video.

Which of course they did and the recent statement by the jury foreman proves that and that is why they were in error. They did not review all the evidence much of which would have shown that drejka was in a reasonable fear of his life.

The jury convicted drejka based on their perception of the video...a video which is viewed differently by intelligent people.

Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable.

Unfortunately the jury focused on their perception and ignored the evidence that supported drejka being in reasonable fear of his life.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

The jury foreman sounds like a fag and defitnitely a idiot.

"Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable."

Your reasons were built on a foundation of falsehoods.

such as???

 

[Faun]

The decision if the belief is reasonable is made by a Jury of your peers. It is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Your actions are always judged by another. Non confrontational is always best when you are armed. The Jury listened to the testimony, and found the video compelling.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

There is a saying. It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Drejka did not need to have either done. He could have minded his own business and walked into the store. No incident would have occurred. No one knocked down. No one dead. No one in prison. It is how I behave when I am carrying.

Drejka could have kept his mouth shut with the cops. Another stupid mistake. What surprises me is not the verdict. But the apparent miracle that Drejka has somehow lucked out of ending up in prison so far.you
That is practically a miracle of epic proportions.

Well you make some good points.

I had not heard the jury foreman was making comments....but if it is true what you quote him as saying then it meshes with what I said regarding why they the jury were in error.

They based their vote to convict based on their perception of the video.

It should not have been based on their perception of anything other than whether or not drejka had a REASONABLE fear of his life being in danger or of grievious bodily harm.

I have posted all the reasons Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of hls life. So I will not go over all that again.

The jury made a huge huge mistake.

But is it is not the first jury to do so and it will not be the last...yet I sill strongly believe in the jury system.

And that is the rub. The Jury felt it was reasonable to pull Sam Colt. At that point the situation changed. The “attacker” backed away. Turning even as the shots were fired. Drejka was not a speed draw champion. There was a second. Or more.

Like you Drejka was outraged. How dare this punk knock me down. I am in the right. This woman should not be in that parking space.

Honestly. If I had been there. I would have gotten behind cover and pulled my own pistol ordering Drejka to drop his gun. Because that shooting was not justified. It was not reasonable.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion no matter how lame it is.

Again...and I am only covering this again because I have a little free time..... it has been gone over and over ....anyhow your perception is simply based on ignorance as in you cannot wrap your head around the fact that backing up a couple of steps and turning sideways was not a retreat...he was simply reacting to the weapon...much like someone touching a hot stove and the reflex action of snatching your hand back without even thinking.

Now of course there are different ways of analyzing the black guys behavior and as has been pointed out intelligent people see it differently...some say that he was retreating and the more intelligent saying obviously not...as in if he had taken off running that would have been retreating and he would not have been shot. But no he just stood there like a idiot...waiting....for what --to get shot--not reasonable behavior.

Most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them yet this guy did not run until he got shot. A tad late...so why did he not run? Well, you must remember he was high as shown by the toxicolgy reports...a high--very high level of 2 drugs were in his system.

It has been shown and was shown in the trial that the drug known by its street name of

ectasy ---causes extreme aggressiveness in some people...and it is very possible even likely the drug was what motivated the black guys agressiveness aka.......charging out of the store and assaulting Drejka...and it is highly likely also that it prevented him from actually retreating aka running to a safe place or a safe distance. He simply failed to react in a normal manner...remained very close to his victim ...so close he still posed a threat and thus put Drejka in a reasonable fear of his life.

Also note in the video there was a white dude hot on the heels of the black guy as he came out of the store....no one knows for sure why he was following the black guy....perhaps to assist him.....anyhow you will note as soon as the gun came out he ran and hid behind some cars....now that is actual retreating....big difference...why is that? Most likely because the white dude was not on drugs and reacted the way any reasonable person would....go to a place of safety.

Baloney. First Drejka had no idea about the drugs. So using that as a claim to justify the obviously unreasonable act of shooting is a huge fail. The Jury heard it, and decided in six hours that the shooting was unreasonable.

The fact that he was not half a mile away shows diddly squat.

The Jury got it tight, and I doubt that Drejka will see any relief from any appeals.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa Dude you are some kinda stooopid. hehheh

You are a prime example of why so many read this board just for the comedic value.

Anyhow and irregardless of your severe shortage of any analytical ability whatsoever.

Let me take you to school............the fact the nigah was loaded with drugs is beyond dispute...the toxicology reports confirmed that and they were at a very high level in his system.

Of course drejka had no idea the muddabuckin idiot was on drugs and that is completely irrelevant.

No one has claimed drejka shot the nigah because he was on drugs.

Where did you get the crazy idea that drejka shot him because he was on drugs?????

You got some kinda movie running in your head?

Anyhow and irregardless.....the expert witness on the possible effects of the drugs in the nighas system proved conclusively in his testimony that the drug (ectasy) causes some people to become extremely aggressive.

Not even to mention the darlin darkie of the liberals had a history of assault...had been arrested for it before....thus he obviously had a propensity for violence.....add to that the fact he was on drugs....is what they call 'a perfect storm'.

All you have dumbass is your stupidity...why inflict that on this board? You should get the hell outta here and let the big boys handle this. hehheh

Before you run off let me explain to your dumb ass of what the significance of the drugs were....they could explain why the nigah was un-reasonably aggressive....no normal person that is not whacked out on drugs are something is going to assault someone just for talking and arguing with his wife

There is absolutely no excuse for the level of violence he exhibited. Now whether or not the drugs played any role in it is something that should be considered.

Now for the real significance for this case that the use of drugs could have played a role in is that it is not unreasonable to believe that this drugged up idiot had no intent to retreat...that he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka after he had slammed him to the ground and in the slow motion video you can observe him continuing to advance after he slammed drejka to the ground.....then he suddenly stops when he sees the weapon come out and recoils like someone whose finger touches a hot stove...jerking it back automatically without even consciously thinking that --oh I must take my finger off the stove...it is a instataneous automatic response.

Thus the black thug was not retreating at all...just recoiling from the sight of the gun....seeing the gun shocked him ...what a damn surprise that was no doubt. Thus his reflexes took over and he recoiled backwards. Then to present a smaller target he turned slightly sideways.

Yet he did not run off like the white dude that was hot on heels coming out of the store...when the white dude saw the weapon he ran and hid behind some cars....but not da nigah...he recoild backwards and just stood there till he got shot. What a fuckin idiot. If he had really retreated...taken off running he would be alive still.

So why didnt he retreat?...very possibly because he was in an impaired condition due to the drugs...he did not realize he should get the hell outta there and very quickly. No he did not retreat....and thus still posed a threat to drejka and a very reasonable threat it was-- especially because a drugged up violent nigha is capable of anything and it is entirely impossible to predict what they would do.

You and the other morons on here may be willing to gamble with your lives but drejka was not. Thus to insure his survival and or not to suffer any grievious bodily harm he pulled the trigger.

A lot of folks would have emptied the gun...me being one of them.

now piss of...enough of your stupidity. Be gone and do not let da screen door hit you where the good Lord split ya. hehheh

"Anyhow and irregardless.....the expert witness on the possible effects of the drugs in the nighas system proved conclusively in his testimony that the drug (ectasy) causes some people to become extremely aggressive.

Not even to mention the darlin darkie of the liberals had a history of assault...had been arrested for it before....thus he obviously had a propensity for violence.....add to that the fact he was on drugs....is what they call 'a perfect storm'."

None of which justifies Drejka shooting him.

 

[Faun]

[


Unfortunately, the jury did not consider all the evidence that would indicate Drejka could have been and most likely was in fear of his life and so forth.

.

They would disagree with you.

Too bad you weren't on the jury, isn't it?

Are you clairvoyant? One would have to be to be able to predict how the jury would have reacted to all the evidence if they had reviewed and discussed it.

The big blunder of the jury was simply that they focused solely on the video as instructed by the prosecutor....anyone that actually watched the trial would have noted in his summation he kept saying over and over watch the video, watch the video....it goes without saying that of course they would watch the video....but why did he keep emphasizing that? Simply to distract the jury from their real obligation of evaluating all the evidence and get them to focus just on the video.

Which of course they did and the recent statement by the jury foreman proves that and that is why they were in error. They did not review all the evidence much of which would have shown that drejka was in a reasonable fear of his life.

The jury convicted drejka based on their perception of the video...a video which is viewed differently by intelligent people.

Forgetting that under Florida's law of self defense the perception of the defendant is critical....as in did he perceive his life was in danger and that he might suffer grievious bodily harm and was that perception reasonable. I have posted the reasons why his perception was very reasonable.

Unfortunately the jury focused on their perception and ignored the evidence that supported drejka being in reasonable fear of his life.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

So the jury found differently that you would have? Damn that sucks, doesn't it? Life is not fair is it? If only you would have been on the jury then justice would have been served.

Now you know how I felt after I watched all of the Casey Anthony trial and knew she was guilty but then the jury let her off the hook for murdering her precious little girl.

Lookie here moron....this is not the first time a jury has gotten it wrong and it will not be the last.

But having said that...I will now say this and I have said it before...we are fortunate to have the jury system....would you want some lame ass judge to determine your guilt or innocence yet this 6 man jury system should be done away with....only floriday and connecticut use it. Much easier for the state to get a conviction with just 6 people on the jury.

A lot of folks talk about how sad this case is...one man dead and another in jail but I will tell you the saddest part of this whole mess.....Clearwater officials were willing to sacrifice a innocent man--one of their own citizens to kowtow to outside politgical operatives in order to protect Clearwater from any financial damage like a boycott etc. Which is what they were threatened with by those outside political operatives who got the media all whipped up.

Clearwater is a tourist town...heavily dependent on tourism...they realized that a lot bad publicity could inflict financial damage on the city.....thus they contrived to indict and convict a innocent man. I think it highly possible that the jury pool had been rigged in their favor.

"Lookie here moron....this is not the first time a jury has gotten it wrong and it will not be the last."

And they didn't get this one wrong. It's no longer self defense once a victim neutralizes the threat, which Drejka did when he brandished a firearm.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Well you make some good points.

I had not heard the jury foreman was making comments....but if it is true what you quote him as saying then it meshes with what I said regarding why they the jury were in error.

They based their vote to convict based on their perception of the video.

It should not have been based on their perception of anything other than whether or not drejka had a REASONABLE fear of his life being in danger or of grievious bodily harm.

I have posted all the reasons Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of hls life. So I will not go over all that again.

The jury made a huge huge mistake.

But is it is not the first jury to do so and it will not be the last...yet I sill strongly believe in the jury system.

And that is the rub. The Jury felt it was reasonable to pull Sam Colt. At that point the situation changed. The “attacker” backed away. Turning even as the shots were fired. Drejka was not a speed draw champion. There was a second. Or more.

Like you Drejka was outraged. How dare this punk knock me down. I am in the right. This woman should not be in that parking space.

Honestly. If I had been there. I would have gotten behind cover and pulled my own pistol ordering Drejka to drop his gun. Because that shooting was not justified. It was not reasonable.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion no matter how lame it is.

Again...and I am only covering this again because I have a little free time..... it has been gone over and over ....anyhow your perception is simply based on ignorance as in you cannot wrap your head around the fact that backing up a couple of steps and turning sideways was not a retreat...he was simply reacting to the weapon...much like someone touching a hot stove and the reflex action of snatching your hand back without even thinking.

Now of course there are different ways of analyzing the black guys behavior and as has been pointed out intelligent people see it differently...some say that he was retreating and the more intelligent saying obviously not...as in if he had taken off running that would have been retreating and he would not have been shot. But no he just stood there like a idiot...waiting....for what --to get shot--not reasonable behavior.

Most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them yet this guy did not run until he got shot. A tad late...so why did he not run? Well, you must remember he was high as shown by the toxicolgy reports...a high--very high level of 2 drugs were in his system.

It has been shown and was shown in the trial that the drug known by its street name of

ectasy ---causes extreme aggressiveness in some people...and it is very possible even likely the drug was what motivated the black guys agressiveness aka.......charging out of the store and assaulting Drejka...and it is highly likely also that it prevented him from actually retreating aka running to a safe place or a safe distance. He simply failed to react in a normal manner...remained very close to his victim ...so close he still posed a threat and thus put Drejka in a reasonable fear of his life.

Also note in the video there was a white dude hot on the heels of the black guy as he came out of the store....no one knows for sure why he was following the black guy....perhaps to assist him.....anyhow you will note as soon as the gun came out he ran and hid behind some cars....now that is actual retreating....big difference...why is that? Most likely because the white dude was not on drugs and reacted the way any reasonable person would....go to a place of safety.

Baloney. First Drejka had no idea about the drugs. So using that as a claim to justify the obviously unreasonable act of shooting is a huge fail. The Jury heard it, and decided in six hours that the shooting was unreasonable.

The fact that he was not half a mile away shows diddly squat.

The Jury got it tight, and I doubt that Drejka will see any relief from any appeals.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa Dude you are some kinda stooopid. hehheh

You are a prime example of why so many read this board just for the comedic value.

Anyhow and irregardless of your severe shortage of any analytical ability whatsoever.

Let me take you to school............the fact the nigah was loaded with drugs is beyond dispute...the toxicology reports confirmed that and they were at a very high level in his system.

Of course drejka had no idea the muddabuckin idiot was on drugs and that is completely irrelevant.

No one has claimed drejka shot the nigah because he was on drugs.

Where did you get the crazy idea that drejka shot him because he was on drugs?????

You got some kinda movie running in your head?

Anyhow and irregardless.....the expert witness on the possible effects of the drugs in the nighas system proved conclusively in his testimony that the drug (ectasy) causes some people to become extremely aggressive.

Not even to mention the darlin darkie of the liberals had a history of assault...had been arrested for it before....thus he obviously had a propensity for violence.....add to that the fact he was on drugs....is what they call 'a perfect storm'.

All you have dumbass is your stupidity...why inflict that on this board? You should get the hell outta here and let the big boys handle this. hehheh

Before you run off let me explain to your dumb ass of what the significance of the drugs were....they could explain why the nigah was un-reasonably aggressive....no normal person that is not whacked out on drugs are something is going to assault someone just for talking and arguing with his wife

There is absolutely no excuse for the level of violence he exhibited. Now whether or not the drugs played any role in it is something that should be considered.

Now for the real significance for this case that the use of drugs could have played a role in is that it is not unreasonable to believe that this drugged up idiot had no intent to retreat...that he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka after he had slammed him to the ground and in the slow motion video you can observe him continuing to advance after he slammed drejka to the ground.....then he suddenly stops when he sees the weapon come out and recoils like someone whose finger touches a hot stove...jerking it back automatically without even consciously thinking that --oh I must take my finger off the stove...it is a instataneous automatic response.

Thus the black thug was not retreating at all...just recoiling from the sight of the gun....seeing the gun shocked him ...what a damn surprise that was no doubt. Thus his reflexes took over and he recoiled backwards. Then to present a smaller target he turned slightly sideways.

Yet he did not run off like the white dude that was hot on heels coming out of the store...when the white dude saw the weapon he ran and hid behind some cars....but not da nigah...he recoild backwards and just stood there till he got shot. What a fuckin idiot. If he had really retreated...taken off running he would be alive still.

So why didnt he retreat?...very possibly because he was in an impaired condition due to the drugs...he did not realize he should get the hell outta there and very quickly. No he did not retreat....and thus still posed a threat to drejka and a very reasonable threat it was-- especially because a drugged up violent nigha is capable of anything and it is entirely impossible to predict what they would do.

You and the other morons on here may be willing to gamble with your lives but drejka was not. Thus to insure his survival and or not to suffer any grievious bodily harm he pulled the trigger.

A lot of folks would have emptied the gun...me being one of them.

now piss of...enough of your stupidity. Be gone and do not let da screen door hit you where the good Lord split ya. hehheh

"Anyhow and irregardless.....the expert witness on the possible effects of the drugs in the nighas system proved conclusively in his testimony that the drug (ectasy) causes some people to become extremely aggressive.

Not even to mention the darlin darkie of the liberals had a history of assault...had been arrested for it before....thus he obviously had a propensity for violence.....add to that the fact he was on drugs....is what they call 'a perfect storm'."

None of which justifies Drejka shooting him.

It shows what he was actually confronted with...but of course drejka did not know anything about his attacker....all he knew was that he had been viciously assaulted and when he rose up he saw a nigha hovering over him....then he reached for his weapon probably remembering the black bitches threat...when my man get back we gonna fuck you up. He might have also remembered some images from videos that circulate on the internet that most of us have seen...black thugs kicking people to death.

Thus he was in reasonable fear of his life or grievious bodily harm. He was a intelligent man with a degree in math and physics. Someone who had never been in a fight in his entire life. Had carried a concealed weapon for around 25 yrs. and had never shot anyone.... a stable member of society...never arrested for anything...completely clean record unlike his attacker who had a history of violence and illegal use of drugs.

In other words a man who would never have pulled that trigger if he was not in fear of his life.

This was a terrible miscarriage of justice.