Guns & Stand Your Ground victory. Got a problem with that? video included.

then is it being asserted by yourself, that if someone is shot or stabbed, but does not die as a result of the injury, it does not count as being deadly force?

 

He wasn't shot, or stabbed.

 

Why do you refuse to understand deadly force does not necessarily involve a weapon?

 

Which is not the question that was presented to yourself. Try answering the actual question rather than making up something else entirely.

It is being asserted by yourself, that if deadly force does not result in someone dying, that it was not truly deadly force?

 

Adrenalin does apply in that situation.

 

Look at all the posters sticking up for the poor little baby who got pushed and than mudered the pusher.

 

Since Drejka has not been convicted, indicted, or even charged, what reason is there to not stand up for the individual who is being unfairly and unduly harassed by the ill-informed who have no understanding of physics and reality?

 

Even the sheriff thinks the law is a joke. As well as a local defense attorney. Already posted their comments so you can look for them if you choose.

 

Subjected to felony battery.

Their opinions on the law are of no relevance or importance. They have jobs they have been assigned to do, and that is the extent of what their legitimate contribution amounts to.

 

What planet would you need to be on to think that was a legitimate shoot?

 

And if their opinions sided with the current law you’d be applauding by them. Go figure...*********

 

Planet ******* ****

 

True, the dead guy went too far with that two handed shove to the ground. But that did not warrant him being killed.

So no, that was not right and it was not "Stand Your Ground". The attacker paused and backed away instantly, turned away slightly. The shot came well after any threat of harm had passed. The shooter should be prosecuted for the killing, there was nothing necessary about it.

I believe in "Castle Doctrine" and "No Duty To Retreat". I carry a gun every day and every where. But these laws are being misapplied by cops, prosecutors and courts. It was never intended that deadly force could be used after a threat was gone. The shooter was on his ass, yes, and he hesitated as the victim moved away. Then he fired. The shooter should be in prison.

 

The prosecutor must prove to a jury of 12 Floridians - likely from the same county - that the shooter did not have a reasonable fear of further bodily harm, or death; if he does not think he can do this, there will be will no charges and no trial.
His opinion matters. The opinion of any such jury matters. No one else's.

My bet? No trial.

 

Nobody should be allowed to kill someone in self-defense unless their fear of deadly violence was a reasonable one.

 

And in the US, that's determined by a jury, not an internet forum.

 

Stand Your Ground laws say that no jury is ever involved. All you have to do is tell a judge "i was skeered so I had to kill him"

 

You should Google "failed stand your ground defense" for evidence to the contrary.

 

Simply not true. In no version of these laws do you speak some magic phrase and all inquiry stops.

There was a very good reason that George Zimmerman did not use that defense in killing Trayvon Martin. A careful reading of Florida's law would show you that the instigator of the conflict can be disqualified from using "Stand Your Ground" as a defense. His lawyers and the entire nation knew the police dispatcher had told him not to pursue Martin. By having done so, Zimmerman opened the door to be accused of triggering the fight.

All "SYG" laws include a list of conditions and disqualifiers. Among those are that you cannot use the defense if the threat passed and you are the one who restarted the fight. You cannot leave a scene, fetch a firearm, return and shoot somebody. You cannot be in the commission of some other crime.

 

Trayvon Martin sucker slugged George Zimmerman and then was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into concrete.

MANY people have died from a single surprise slug called "the knockout game."

Dozens have died. Some estimate over 100. Nor does this count those who suffered major or permanent brain damage.

But, according the most Democrats on the topic of Zimmerman, they will tell you those who died by an unarmed assault or suffered permanent brain damage were never in any danger. They're dead, but the assault wasn't really dangers as it was just one punch according to those Democrats.

They are furious that George Zimmerman - who they were non-stop falsely told is a white man - when to the same measure Obama is black he is Latino - was not murdered that night by the black man who violently attacked him in a manner KNOWN to be in a lethal attack.



Many, if not most, Democrats on the topic of Trayvon Martin claim the attacks of a single punch that murdered the person is no big deal at all. If someone is bothering you, sucker punch them and then beat their head into concrete is what the say is the RIGHT thing to do - explaining it isn't anything serious anyway.

 

It has yet to be proven that Drejka did not have a reasonable fear of deadly violence, after he was already subjected to it without provocation.

 

We have no idea what thoughts and intentions were going on at the time but I do know that for the victim of a violent attack like the man on the ground it takes much longer for him to recover enough to to find out if another attack was coming or not. If I was the man on the ground and saw a younger bigger man standing over me I would probably react the same way.

 

I agree but maybe you should have said without warning instead of provocation. There might have been some provocation depending on the relationship between the attacker and the woman in the car.

 

The statement of "without provocation" is an accurate assessment of facts. The video shows the individual who initiated physical violence was not in a mad dash to reach Drejka as fast as possible. The body posture and stride is not indicative of one who is experiencing concern for the safety of another.

 

I reviewed the video again and I agree maybe we can say without warning or provocation. Of course if it was me coming out of the store "I would have said ok she will move the car
".