Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[Lewdog]

Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not? I want to make sure to hold you to this.

The constitution has nothing to do with it

The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government

Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime. You are ******* arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down. You ******* believe in the Constitution or not. It's based on the same principle.

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The constitution has nothing to do with it

The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government

Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime. You are ******* arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down. You ******* believe in the Constitution or not. It's based on the same principle.

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you

You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit

 

[OODA_Loop]

President Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

Obama Adminstration said if you cant manage your finances - you cant be fit to own a gun. Not true. This was absent an adjudication of mental incompetence.

Trump was right to terminate this practice.

 

[kaz]

You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you

Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.

Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off

He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......

The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

If I was screaming at the guy's wife when he did it, I'd think if he leveled me then backed off like this guy did, he probably was just protecting his wife and wanted me to stop. If he wanted to kill me for screaming at his wife over where they parked, he'd be unlikely to back off.

But hey, if I'm this guy, it's what I designed. I can kill him now. Particularly since he backed off giving me the chance to get my gun

 

[The Professor]

Nope. Not justifiable. The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon. He wasn't even continuing to assault him. For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life. Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.

Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly

A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground

Has no bearing on the case now.

Sure it does. If it goes to hearing. Defense will produce incidents and professional testimony of death due to head injuries from being pushed or falling onto hard surfaces. That reasonable fear is justification for lethal force under Florida law

A jury will never see such evidence or hear such testimony. Michael Drejka (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), did not kill Markeis McGlockton (hereinafter referred to as the victim) because he feared being shoved. He shot and killed the victim after he had been pushed to the ground. The potential injuries from that shove are as meaningless as the price of wheat in China and the actual injuries the defendant received are equally irrelevant. You are not familiar with Florida law so I will explain. First, here are the applicable Florida Statutes which define when and what type of force can be used in self defense:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. In the quoted statute deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time. You seem to think that somehow the defendant was protecting himself from sort of harm by killing the victim. One word: Ridiculous. Whatever injury the defendant sustained as a result of the shoving would be not have been avoided nor alleviated by killing the assailant afterwards..

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.

CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.

But that is just my own humble opinion (and yes I lied about the humble part).

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.

Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off

He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......

The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

If I was screaming at the guy's wife when he did it, I'd think if he leveled me then backed off like this guy did, he probably was just protecting his wife and wanted me to stop. If he wanted to kill me for screaming at his wife over where they parked, he'd be unlikely to back off.

But hey, if I'm this guy, it's what I designed. I can kill him now. Particularly since he backed off giving me the chance to get my gun

Don't pretend to know what other people are thinking

 

[Lewdog]

President Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

Obama Adminstration said if you cant manage your finances - you cant be fit to own a gun. Not true. This was absent an adjudication of mental incompetence.

Trump was right to terminate this practice.

No the law was if you receive money from the federal government for disability that is for mental illness, you can not legally own a gun.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back.

Being knocked down onto the pavement can and will cause death death or great bodily harm or injury. You can parade many credible medical professionals to testify.

Stepping back from an attack on someone doesn't mean the attack is over.

Only on this planet. Your planet may have different rules, but the guy was not a threat. If he had attempted to close the distance to the guy of the ground after the gun was pulled, he would have been justified. As it stands, he does not have any justification to pull the trigger.

 

[Lewdog]

Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime. You are ******* arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down. You ******* believe in the Constitution or not. It's based on the same principle.

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you

You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

"SKULL PILOT SAID: ↑
Doesn't make it illegal either

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead"

 

[kaz]

Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not? I want to make sure to hold you to this.

The constitution has nothing to do with it

The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government

Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime. You are ******* arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down. You ******* believe in the Constitution or not. It's based on the same principle.

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Yeah protection from the government not other citizens

It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.

Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens. That is NOT what the Constitution is

 

[Skull Pilot]

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you

You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

"SKULL PILOT SAID: ↑
Doesn't make it illegal either

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead"

So I didn't say he deserved it. I said I don't care

Thank for admitting that you are a LYING SACK OF SHIT

 

[Lewdog]

The constitution has nothing to do with it

The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government

Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime. You are ******* arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down. You ******* believe in the Constitution or not. It's based on the same principle.

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Yeah protection from the government not other citizens

It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.

Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens. That is NOT what the Constitution is

I never said that.

I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is. I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I sometimes carry this in a G42 and have reservations. This is supposed to be an effective design. Handgun rounds especially small ones are ineffective man stoppers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope. Not justifiable. The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon. He wasn't even continuing to assault him. For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life. Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.

Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly

A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground

Has no bearing on the case now.

Sure it does. If it goes to hearing. Defense will produce incidents and professional testimony of death due to head injuries from being pushed or falling onto hard surfaces. That reasonable fear is justification for lethal force under Florida law

He didn't die and he didn't strike his head. Your argument falls apart after you recognize that fact.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime. You are ******* arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down. You ******* believe in the Constitution or not. It's based on the same principle.

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Yeah protection from the government not other citizens

It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.

Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens. That is NOT what the Constitution is

I never said that.

I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is. I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.

And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron

 

[Lewdog]

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you

You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

"SKULL PILOT SAID: ↑
Doesn't make it illegal either

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead"

So I didn't say he deserved it. I said I don't care

Thank for admitting that you are a LYING SACK OF SHIT

Yeah and if you don't care, it means the same damn thing, because as I said, you don't care if the punishment for one's actions fits the severity of their actions.

 

[kaz]

So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?

If he was just yelling?

I would have ignored him

If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story

You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him. I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not

Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.

How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?

I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I haven't either, and hope I never will be.

But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted

You get in the car and drive away

Getting your family in the car while a psycho is screaming at you over where you parked is not as trivial a task as you present it.

So you advocate incredible discipline and completely ignoring the threat of a guy threatening you and your family.

On the other hand, you go from if you get touched, you can use lethal force.

You're just arguing like a moonbat.

And you don't give a shit at all that the guy staged the whole thing by repeatedly initiating confrontation with people while armed intending to aim to kill. You're fine with that he planned to kill someone and just didn't know who. And you're not worried this guy is screaming at your wife and your children are there.

You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one no matter how stupid it is?

 

[Lewdog]

WTF? You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do. The Constitution is a limitation on government. Where the **** do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government? That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law

What in the **** are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Yeah protection from the government not other citizens

It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.

Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens. That is NOT what the Constitution is

I never said that.

I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is. I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.

And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron

Yes it is... it's called taking it into your own hands.

 

[kaz]

Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings. Got it. Thanks for pointing that out

Disarming honest citizens? That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either **** up or don't. You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.

Here's a hint. The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.

The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.

I realize that was very subtle

And I told you that you don't know who the honest and dishonest ones until they do something dishonest. This isn't Minority Report where psychics tell you ahead of time who will commit crimes.

Asked and answered. They identify themselves. Your law identifies them as the honest ones follow the law and the dishonest ones don't. Then you've created a situation where the dishonest ones are the only ones armed. Good job

This idiot that murdered this man was a legal gun owner. You can't have it both ways.

WTF? What does that have to do with that he can't take his gun into a bar. You really can't follow a conversation, can you?

 

[kaz]

However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however. And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.

If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked? You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?

I don't yell at anyone

but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is

Threatening people is a crime.

So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.

Again with the stupid argument

Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation

Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.

That's totally idiotic

Do you know he was threatening anyone

There was no audio

Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy

Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?

Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds

I watched it once

I'm not watching it again

How about you answer my question?

I did, you're ignoring my answer. I specifically told you how I know what his intentions are