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

Adrenalin.

 

then adrenalin will send his ass to prison

 

The simple fact charges have been brought against the individual in question ultimately means nothing. Charges were brought against George Zimmerman, and everyone knows how such ultimately turned out. Only a conviction will mean anything.

The prosecutor has quite the task ahead to prove to the jury that Drejka was not in fear of his life, or that his actions were not reasonable. Some may consider such a task to be monumental. Handicapped parking spaces are a big issue with the public in the state of Florida. If one were to make wagers and take bets on the matter, the jury may very well find Drejka not guilty on the basis that he was opposing the illegal misuse of such a spot by someone who was not only unqualified to use it, but who also engaged in compulsive dishonesty by claiming there were no other available spots to utilize.

The testimony of the girlfriend alone may serve to sink the case entirely.

 

I'm saying that someone standing over you while you're on the ground, who put you on the ground, is not automatically no longer a threat just because they are moving away from you. I'm not saying that this shooter was justified, either. In a self defense situation the use of lethal force is authorized to end the threat. You don't have to fire 15 shots (I'm looking at you, NYPD) to end the threat. How many shots were fired by the shooter?

If facing a threat and you're on the ground, having been put there by violence from the threat, how do you retreat without further opening yourself up to another potentially lethal or serious physical attack.

 

@Rucker61 fyi

Stop with the paraphrasing!

YOU have a quote, work from there, without editing.
Try highlighting! Highlighting parts of a quote instead of editing or paraphrasing a quote.

In other words ( a paraphrase lead in )
Give honest dialog a chance.
That's all that I'm saying.
Give honest dialog a chance.
That's all that I'm saying <repeat as a chant>


A reply will be demonstrated in future uploads.
No need to reply specifically.
No need to espouse your honesty

Moi

​

 

civilians are not police.

they have the right to use deadly force in order to end a deadly threat.

if someone is backing away because you are pointing a gun at then, the threat is over.

 

I don't see how a jury will unanimously convict him of manslaughter.

There is a reasonable doubt.

 

Yes, there will be the race baiters doing what they do, and the knuckleheads will loot and burn their own towns.

South central LA STILL hasn't recovered from the Rodney King riots.

 

you can't know that for sure.

 

what we see in the video is nothing less than vigilante street justice.

we cannot have it

 

guess what?

if you are gonna use deadly force and KILL someone, you better be ****ing sure a jury will see it your way.

 

Depends on the circumstances, and the jury.

 

any decent prosecutor can articulate that once someone unarmed is backing away because you are pointing a gun at them, you no longer have the legal right to use deadly force.

 

Cool opinion.

 

its an opinion that can easily be articulated by any good Prosecutor.

this guy is going to prison.

 

And any decent defense will introduce doubt. Its not as simple as you'd like it to be.

Reasonable doubt is the standard.

And its reasonable for an elderly man who was just assaulted to believe his life was in danger, even if the attacker started walking backwards for a few steps.

 

It's going to trial. None of your posts here will be admitted as evidence. Move on to a different topic.

 

naa I like this topic.

Charles Bronson-wannabee is going to prison.

 

The Prosecutor will have an enormously difficult job here. Tougher than Trayvon Martin.

In both cases, public sentiment is what brought them to trial.

But the burdens that must be met are the same.

 

Youi've can't know this.

 

Indeed. The prosecutor has to prove the shooter did not have a reasonable fear.
To 12 Floridians, from the same county.

 

Prosecutors are damn good at articulating when deadly force is legal and when it is not.

any decent Prosecutor will have a field day with this one.

 

should be easy, as the unarmed attacker was backing away.

that negates any claim of "reasonable" fear.

 

I think you watch too much law and order...




ABC Action News spoke with a criminal defense attorney, Bjorn Brunvand, who calls this a strong case for the defense. He points out two key obstacles for prosecutors. First, the surveillance video showing McGlockton pushing Drejka. Secondly, the fact the stand your ground law changed last year to place the burden of proof on the prosecution to show it's not a stand your ground case instead of the defense to prove it.



“Is it reasonable that he was in fear? I think it was reasonable. I’m not a fan of the stand your ground law but that is our current law and I think it will be very beneficial to him," said Brunvand.



He adds should the defense file to dismiss, based on stand your ground, and a judge side with Drejka there would be no trial.


Drejka has a concealed carry license.
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...rge-in-clearwater-stand-your-ground-shooting-

 

I really don't think he was thinking about a jury when he drew his gun.