OtherGround Forums Florida Man Stands his Ground over Parking Dispute

8/25/19 3:06 PM
2/23/05
Posts: 14678
OpenedUp - 
holly9000 -
pfsjkd - 
holly9000 - Shit decision. He wouldn't even have been charged but for the current political climate.

Wrong. The guy wanted to carry and be a badass. He fucked up bigly so now he's gotta pay the piper. 


Wrong. The Pinellas county sheriff wasn't even going to charge him until the video went public and all the SJW's started crying. Clear cut case of skewed public opinion prevailing over common sense

You think his life was in danger? It wasn't. That guy should not be on the streets. He can play that stupid shit behind bars now 


Easy to judge in hindsight but at the time I imagine he felt about as threatened as any reasonable person might feel after being pushed so violently. Either way the law wasn't written to be debated by 12 people it's meant to be applied in real time-he says he felt his life was threatened. I feel the video bears him out. If I was on that jury he would have walked.
8/25/19 3:39 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 43206
holly9000 -
pfsjkd - 
holly9000 - Shit decision. He wouldn't even have been charged but for the current political climate.

Wrong. The guy wanted to carry and be a badass. He fucked up bigly so now he's gotta pay the piper. 


Wrong. The Pinellas county sheriff wasn't even going to charge him until the video went public and all the SJW's started crying. Clear cut case of skewed public opinion prevailing over common sense

Then the Sheriff was derelict in his duty. That shit was cut and dried. Shooter deserves everything he gets. 

8/25/19 3:41 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 43207
holly9000 -
OpenedUp - 
holly9000 -
pfsjkd - 
holly9000 - Shit decision. He wouldn't even have been charged but for the current political climate.

Wrong. The guy wanted to carry and be a badass. He fucked up bigly so now he's gotta pay the piper. 


Wrong. The Pinellas county sheriff wasn't even going to charge him until the video went public and all the SJW's started crying. Clear cut case of skewed public opinion prevailing over common sense

You think his life was in danger? It wasn't. That guy should not be on the streets. He can play that stupid shit behind bars now 


Easy to judge in hindsight but at the time I imagine he felt about as threatened as any reasonable person might feel after being pushed so violently. Either way the law wasn't written to be debated by 12 people it's meant to be applied in real time-he says he felt his life was threatened. I feel the video bears him out. If I was on that jury he would have walked.

LOL @ 'the law wasn't written to be debated by 12 people'. Jesus, dude. The law was not written to give people absolute authority to shoot people whenever they feel threatened based on their own personal definition of the word with absolutely no oversight. 

8/25/19 4:30 PM
1/27/14
Posts: 6356
holly9000 -
OpenedUp - 
holly9000 -
pfsjkd - 
holly9000 - Shit decision. He wouldn't even have been charged but for the current political climate.

Wrong. The guy wanted to carry and be a badass. He fucked up bigly so now he's gotta pay the piper. 


Wrong. The Pinellas county sheriff wasn't even going to charge him until the video went public and all the SJW's started crying. Clear cut case of skewed public opinion prevailing over common sense

You think his life was in danger? It wasn't. That guy should not be on the streets. He can play that stupid shit behind bars now 


Easy to judge in hindsight but at the time I imagine he felt about as threatened as any reasonable person might feel after being pushed so violently. Either way the law wasn't written to be debated by 12 people it's meant to be applied in real time-he says he felt his life was threatened. I feel the video bears him out. If I was on that jury he would have walked.

I hope you are never on a jury then. 

8/25/19 5:47 PM
2/23/05
Posts: 14680
OpenedUp - 
holly9000 -
OpenedUp - 
holly9000 -
pfsjkd - 
holly9000 - Shit decision. He wouldn't even have been charged but for the current political climate.

Wrong. The guy wanted to carry and be a badass. He fucked up bigly so now he's gotta pay the piper. 


Wrong. The Pinellas county sheriff wasn't even going to charge him until the video went public and all the SJW's started crying. Clear cut case of skewed public opinion prevailing over common sense

You think his life was in danger? It wasn't. That guy should not be on the streets. He can play that stupid shit behind bars now 


Easy to judge in hindsight but at the time I imagine he felt about as threatened as any reasonable person might feel after being pushed so violently. Either way the law wasn't written to be debated by 12 people it's meant to be applied in real time-he says he felt his life was threatened. I feel the video bears him out. If I was on that jury he would have walked.

I hope you are never on a jury then. 


You never know, stay in school kids
8/25/19 5:54 PM
6/8/08
Posts: 12481

lol. Idiots still saying the murder was right hahaha... incredible. 

8/25/19 6:14 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 22076
holly9000 -
OpenedUp - 
holly9000 -
pfsjkd - 
holly9000 - Shit decision. He wouldn't even have been charged but for the current political climate.

Wrong. The guy wanted to carry and be a badass. He fucked up bigly so now he's gotta pay the piper. 


Wrong. The Pinellas county sheriff wasn't even going to charge him until the video went public and all the SJW's started crying. Clear cut case of skewed public opinion prevailing over common sense

You think his life was in danger? It wasn't. That guy should not be on the streets. He can play that stupid shit behind bars now 


Easy to judge in hindsight but at the time I imagine he felt about as threatened as any reasonable person might feel after being pushed so violently. Either way the law wasn't written to be debated by 12 people it's meant to be applied in real time-he says he felt his life was threatened. I feel the video bears him out. If I was on that jury he would have walked.

Oh so you're a pansy as well?

8/25/19 8:26 PM
4/15/16
Posts: 6790

I watched the entire trial on YouTube. Here are a few interesting points:

McGlockton (the guy that pushed Drejka and was shot/killed), was high on MDMA (per the toxicology report). The prosecution dismissed this, saying it was not a factor, calling it "a social love drug."

One of the jury members spoke up saying he knew someone that was seated in the gallery. The defense said the person the juror recognized was attending the trial with other members of the NAACP (possibly including the president). 

The prosecutor looked at the jury and with a straight face insisted the shove was not assault because McGlockton was coming to the defense of others. 

Drejka had a concealed carry permit and actively carried since he was 22. Drejka was 47 years old at the time of the shooting. So he went 25+ years without an incident. 

IMO, according to the letter of the stand your ground law, this was a legal shooting. I don't however believe Drejka's life was in immediate danger, because McGlockton seemed to sort of back up after the shove. However the defense insisted he wasn't backing off, rather squaring up, taking a fighting stance, ready to whoop Drejka's ass. Watching the video again, this could be accurate.

Tough call, but I expected a hung jury.

 

8/25/19 8:33 PM
7/25/08
Posts: 17314

Meh, the country is a better place with him behind bars

8/25/19 9:01 PM
7/16/17
Posts: 220
White347LX -

What a shitty reason to die.

And a shitty reason to kill.

Edited: 8/26/19 12:14 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 43209

"However the defense insisted he wasn't backing off, rather squaring up, taking a fighting stance, ready to whoop Drejka's ass. Watching the video again, this could be accurate."

Unless it's obvious to a reasonable person then that's a load of shit. Maybe he was getting ready to square off. Maybe he was getting ready to knit a wool sweater. Maybe he was getting ready to do a double back handspring with a full twist. We'll never know because he got shot before he did any of that. 

If Drejka misperceived the situation, that isn't necessarily a show stopper. But the misperception has to be reasonable. For example, if the guy reached in his pocket after knocking Drejka down. That's a common prep movement for drawing a weapon. If that had happened and Drejka shot, I'd be defending him as much as I'm attacking him now, even if the guy was just reaching for his phone and not an actual weapon. 

Taking a step backward is not a common prep movement to continuing an attack. Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. Way, way, way more than most people realize. You can't just start blasting and say, "Well, I was kinda sure that the guy might have been getting ready to come at me..."

Drejka thought he was a bigger deal than he was. He wasn't the parking police. He had no duty to give them shit about their parking. And look what happened when he took that duty on; he created a situation that he couldn't control, he killed a guy, and now he's gonna be a convicted felon doing time in stir. Good work, sport. Real good work.  

8/26/19 2:36 AM
9/13/16
Posts: 1331
Hashtag - 

I watched the entire trial on YouTube. Here are a few interesting points:

McGlockton (the guy that pushed Drejka and was shot/killed), was high on MDMA (per the toxicology report). The prosecution dismissed this, saying it was not a factor, calling it "a social love drug."

One of the jury members spoke up saying he knew someone that was seated in the gallery. The defense said the person the juror recognized was attending the trial with other members of the NAACP (possibly including the president). 

The prosecutor looked at the jury and with a straight face insisted the shove was not assault because McGlockton was coming to the defense of others. 

Drejka had a concealed carry permit and actively carried since he was 22. Drejka was 47 years old at the time of the shooting. So he went 25+ years without an incident. 

IMO, according to the letter of the stand your ground law, this was a legal shooting. I don't however believe Drejka's life was in immediate danger, because McGlockton seemed to sort of back up after the shove. However the defense insisted he wasn't backing off, rather squaring up, taking a fighting stance, ready to whoop Drejka's ass. Watching the video again, this could be accurate.

Tough call, but I expected a hung jury.

 


What does 25+ years without an incident mean? That he never killed anyone else before? From what I remember he had a history of getting into confrontations while armed.

I'm genuinely curious too. I didnt watch the trial and don't really know the details.
8/26/19 2:48 AM
4/15/16
Posts: 6791
tapnaporsnapbro -
Hashtag - 

I watched the entire trial on YouTube. Here are a few interesting points:

McGlockton (the guy that pushed Drejka and was shot/killed), was high on MDMA (per the toxicology report). The prosecution dismissed this, saying it was not a factor, calling it "a social love drug."

One of the jury members spoke up saying he knew someone that was seated in the gallery. The defense said the person the juror recognized was attending the trial with other members of the NAACP (possibly including the president). 

The prosecutor looked at the jury and with a straight face insisted the shove was not assault because McGlockton was coming to the defense of others. 

Drejka had a concealed carry permit and actively carried since he was 22. Drejka was 47 years old at the time of the shooting. So he went 25+ years without an incident. 

IMO, according to the letter of the stand your ground law, this was a legal shooting. I don't however believe Drejka's life was in immediate danger, because McGlockton seemed to sort of back up after the shove. However the defense insisted he wasn't backing off, rather squaring up, taking a fighting stance, ready to whoop Drejka's ass. Watching the video again, this could be accurate.

Tough call, but I expected a hung jury.

 


What does 25+ years without an incident mean? That he never killed anyone else before? From what I remember he had a history of getting into confrontations while armed.

I'm genuinely curious too. I didnt watch the trial and don't really know the details.

He got his conceal carry permit when he was 22. He was 47 at the time of the shooting. Prior to that, he had no incidents. Such as no reports of pulling the gun out, brandishing it, threatening people with it, etc. 

About one month prior to the shooting, he did get in an argument with some guy about parking in the handicap spot at that same convenience store. That one didn't escalate beyond the two arguing.

Apparently the guy was driving a work truck, so Drejka called his employer and told on him.  

8/26/19 4:32 AM
3/12/07
Posts: 11276

Proving manslaughter

  1. Is Victim dead? Yes.
  2. Did Defendant intentionally commit the act that killed Victim? Yes, he intentionally fired his gun, shooting Victim, which killed Victim.

Proving Justification

  1. Was there an actual danger of imminent death or great bodily harm? No, Victim did not have a weapon, did not cause any serious injury nor attempt to cause serious injury.
  2. Would a reasonably prudent and cautious person believe the appearance of the danger of imminent death or great bodily harm was so real that only the use of deadly force could avoid the danger?

 

No, Victim merely shoved Defendant, which is not deadly force. Victim also moved away from Defendant when Defendant drew his firearm. Because Defendant was not in apparent danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, he could not have justifiably committed manslaughter.

MDMA – This was an attempt to show that Victim had the ability to commit murder or great bodily harm upon defendant, not that he was attempting to. If Defendant was not in reasonable fear of the danger of imminent death or GBH, then the MDMA in victim's system is irrelevant.

Movement – The expert for movement was an attempt to discredit the prosecution's argument that Victim's actions did not cause rise to a reasonable fear of ID and GBH. If a reasonably prudent and cautions person would not believe the movement caused fear of ID and GBH, then the circumstances would not rise to justifiable use of deadly force. Therefore, the defense had to present some kind of evidence that the movement was or could reasoanably be seen as aggressive and dangerous. Even if the defense was successful, they would still need to prove it rose to the level of ID and GBH. 

The Shove – this was an attempt by the defense to prove the circumstances rose to a reasonable belief of ID or GBH. Whether or not this was a battery or assault is irrelevant unless the act constituted a forcible felony. (If it did, then there is another provision for justfiable use of deadly force that could be used). Simple battery/assault is not a forcible felony. Therefore, a reasonably prudent and cautious person would have to believe a shove causes a reasoable fear of ID or GBH. If this were true, children on playgrounds could theoretically kill each other for shoving each other to the ground. Obviously, that is not reasonable.

All of this put together is a review of the totality of the circumstances that demonstrates the jury made the correct decision in finding that this was manslaughter without legal justification or excuse (I didn't break down the excuses because they are for accidents, which don't apply here)..

8/26/19 6:05 AM
5/22/05
Posts: 23413
WikiTheWalrus -

Proving manslaughter

  1. Is Victim dead? Yes.
  2. Did Defendant intentionally commit the act that killed Victim? Yes, he intentionally fired his gun, shooting Victim, which killed Victim.

Proving Justification

  1. Was there an actual danger of imminent death or great bodily harm? No, Victim did not have a weapon, did not cause any serious injury nor attempt to cause serious injury.
  2. Would a reasonably prudent and cautious person believe the appearance of the danger of imminent death or great bodily harm was so real that only the use of deadly force could avoid the danger?

 

No, Victim merely shoved Defendant, which is not deadly force. Victim also moved away from Defendant when Defendant drew his firearm. Because Defendant was not in apparent danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, he could not have justifiably committed manslaughter.

MDMA – This was an attempt to show that Victim had the ability to commit murder or great bodily harm upon defendant, not that he was attempting to. If Defendant was not in reasonable fear of the danger of imminent death or GBH, then the MDMA in victim's system is irrelevant.

Movement – The expert for movement was an attempt to discredit the prosecution's argument that Victim's actions did not cause rise to a reasonable fear of ID and GBH. If a reasonably prudent and cautions person would not believe the movement caused fear of ID and GBH, then the circumstances would not rise to justifiable use of deadly force. Therefore, the defense had to present some kind of evidence that the movement was or could reasoanably be seen as aggressive and dangerous. Even if the defense was successful, they would still need to prove it rose to the level of ID and GBH. 

The Shove – this was an attempt by the defense to prove the circumstances rose to a reasonable belief of ID or GBH. Whether or not this was a battery or assault is irrelevant unless the act constituted a forcible felony. (If it did, then there is another provision for justfiable use of deadly force that could be used). Simple battery/assault is not a forcible felony. Therefore, a reasonably prudent and cautious person would have to believe a shove causes a reasoable fear of ID or GBH. If this were true, children on playgrounds could theoretically kill each other for shoving each other to the ground. Obviously, that is not reasonable.

All of this put together is a review of the totality of the circumstances that demonstrates the jury made the correct decision in finding that this was manslaughter without legal justification or excuse (I didn't break down the excuses because they are for accidents, which don't apply here)..

....but, but he was a black thug.

8/26/19 6:08 AM
6/8/08
Posts: 12484
WikiTheWalrus -

Proving manslaughter

  1. Is Victim dead? Yes.
  2. Did Defendant intentionally commit the act that killed Victim? Yes, he intentionally fired his gun, shooting Victim, which killed Victim.

Proving Justification

  1. Was there an actual danger of imminent death or great bodily harm? No, Victim did not have a weapon, did not cause any serious injury nor attempt to cause serious injury.
  2. Would a reasonably prudent and cautious person believe the appearance of the danger of imminent death or great bodily harm was so real that only the use of deadly force could avoid the danger?

 

No, Victim merely shoved Defendant, which is not deadly force. Victim also moved away from Defendant when Defendant drew his firearm. Because Defendant was not in apparent danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, he could not have justifiably committed manslaughter.

MDMA – This was an attempt to show that Victim had the ability to commit murder or great bodily harm upon defendant, not that he was attempting to. If Defendant was not in reasonable fear of the danger of imminent death or GBH, then the MDMA in victim's system is irrelevant.

Movement – The expert for movement was an attempt to discredit the prosecution's argument that Victim's actions did not cause rise to a reasonable fear of ID and GBH. If a reasonably prudent and cautions person would not believe the movement caused fear of ID and GBH, then the circumstances would not rise to justifiable use of deadly force. Therefore, the defense had to present some kind of evidence that the movement was or could reasoanably be seen as aggressive and dangerous. Even if the defense was successful, they would still need to prove it rose to the level of ID and GBH. 

The Shove – this was an attempt by the defense to prove the circumstances rose to a reasonable belief of ID or GBH. Whether or not this was a battery or assault is irrelevant unless the act constituted a forcible felony. (If it did, then there is another provision for justfiable use of deadly force that could be used). Simple battery/assault is not a forcible felony. Therefore, a reasonably prudent and cautious person would have to believe a shove causes a reasoable fear of ID or GBH. If this were true, children on playgrounds could theoretically kill each other for shoving each other to the ground. Obviously, that is not reasonable.

All of this put together is a review of the totality of the circumstances that demonstrates the jury made the correct decision in finding that this was manslaughter without legal justification or excuse (I didn't break down the excuses because they are for accidents, which don't apply here)..

/THREAD

8/26/19 8:31 AM
10/24/03
Posts: 8131

Letting people know they shouldn't park in a handicapped spot is not out of line. I have parked in one not knowing and people came to tell me about it, It's not out of line. IT'S BEING RESPECTFUL TO THOSE WHO AREN'T AS PHYSICALLY ABLE. 

8/26/19 8:38 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 102665
banco -
WikiTheWalrus -

Proving manslaughter

  1. Is Victim dead? Yes.
  2. Did Defendant intentionally commit the act that killed Victim? Yes, he intentionally fired his gun, shooting Victim, which killed Victim.

Proving Justification

  1. Was there an actual danger of imminent death or great bodily harm? No, Victim did not have a weapon, did not cause any serious injury nor attempt to cause serious injury.
  2. Would a reasonably prudent and cautious person believe the appearance of the danger of imminent death or great bodily harm was so real that only the use of deadly force could avoid the danger?

 

No, Victim merely shoved Defendant, which is not deadly force. Victim also moved away from Defendant when Defendant drew his firearm. Because Defendant was not in apparent danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, he could not have justifiably committed manslaughter.

MDMA – This was an attempt to show that Victim had the ability to commit murder or great bodily harm upon defendant, not that he was attempting to. If Defendant was not in reasonable fear of the danger of imminent death or GBH, then the MDMA in victim's system is irrelevant.

Movement – The expert for movement was an attempt to discredit the prosecution's argument that Victim's actions did not cause rise to a reasonable fear of ID and GBH. If a reasonably prudent and cautions person would not believe the movement caused fear of ID and GBH, then the circumstances would not rise to justifiable use of deadly force. Therefore, the defense had to present some kind of evidence that the movement was or could reasoanably be seen as aggressive and dangerous. Even if the defense was successful, they would still need to prove it rose to the level of ID and GBH. 

The Shove – this was an attempt by the defense to prove the circumstances rose to a reasonable belief of ID or GBH. Whether or not this was a battery or assault is irrelevant unless the act constituted a forcible felony. (If it did, then there is another provision for justfiable use of deadly force that could be used). Simple battery/assault is not a forcible felony. Therefore, a reasonably prudent and cautious person would have to believe a shove causes a reasoable fear of ID or GBH. If this were true, children on playgrounds could theoretically kill each other for shoving each other to the ground. Obviously, that is not reasonable.

All of this put together is a review of the totality of the circumstances that demonstrates the jury made the correct decision in finding that this was manslaughter without legal justification or excuse (I didn't break down the excuses because they are for accidents, which don't apply here)..

....but, but he was a black thug.

And on drugs at the time

8/26/19 8:42 AM
5/4/12
Posts: 21375

I am totally okay with this decision. Fuck that guy.

 

 

Edited: 8/26/19 8:46 AM
1/22/19
Posts: 118
Elon's Musk -
Samoa - 

Bitch made pussy ass mark. A CCW holder with his weapon provokes an issue over a parking spot and can't get it from the shoulder so he shoots and kills a man. 

Don't get into a confrontation with someone because they park in a handicapped spot. Especially don't create a confrontation over a handicapped parking spot when you're carrying your fuckin gun. 

 

He didn't provoke an issue. The person who parked in the handicap spot is the person who provoked and started the issue.

That's not his job to enforce that.  He clearly felt brave because he was carrying, much like wannabe cop George Zimmerman.  I am 100% certain just showing the gun would have prevented the now dead guy from acting further, but gun guy was offended, embarrassed and looking for revenge.  That was straight up murder and generally what happens in these "stand your ground" cases - wherein the person shot was never given the chance to surrender.  The guy should have atleast given the guy a chance to get on the ground, call the cops and then sue his ass for assault and battery in court, or if he shot he should have shot a leg, not the chest.

8/26/19 9:14 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 10031
tapnaporsnapbro -
Hashtag - 

I watched the entire trial on YouTube. Here are a few interesting points:

McGlockton (the guy that pushed Drejka and was shot/killed), was high on MDMA (per the toxicology report). The prosecution dismissed this, saying it was not a factor, calling it "a social love drug."

One of the jury members spoke up saying he knew someone that was seated in the gallery. The defense said the person the juror recognized was attending the trial with other members of the NAACP (possibly including the president). 

The prosecutor looked at the jury and with a straight face insisted the shove was not assault because McGlockton was coming to the defense of others. 

Drejka had a concealed carry permit and actively carried since he was 22. Drejka was 47 years old at the time of the shooting. So he went 25+ years without an incident. 

IMO, according to the letter of the stand your ground law, this was a legal shooting. I don't however believe Drejka's life was in immediate danger, because McGlockton seemed to sort of back up after the shove. However the defense insisted he wasn't backing off, rather squaring up, taking a fighting stance, ready to whoop Drejka's ass. Watching the video again, this could be accurate.

Tough call, but I expected a hung jury.

 


What does 25+ years without an incident mean? That he never killed anyone else before? From what I remember he had a history of getting into confrontations while armed.

I'm genuinely curious too. I didnt watch the trial and don't really know the details.

Apparently after 25 years without killing anyone it means he's entitled to a freebie with no comebacks.

8/27/19 8:20 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 82912
WikiTheWalrus - 

Proving manslaughter

  1. Is Victim dead? Yes.
  2. Did Defendant intentionally commit the act that killed Victim? Yes, he intentionally fired his gun, shooting Victim, which killed Victim.

Proving Justification

  1. Was there an actual danger of imminent death or great bodily harm? No, Victim did not have a weapon, did not cause any serious injury nor attempt to cause serious injury.
  2. Would a reasonably prudent and cautious person believe the appearance of the danger of imminent death or great bodily harm was so real that only the use of deadly force could avoid the danger?

 

No, Victim merely shoved Defendant, which is not deadly force. Victim also moved away from Defendant when Defendant drew his firearm. Because Defendant was not in apparent danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, he could not have justifiably committed manslaughter.

MDMA – This was an attempt to show that Victim had the ability to commit murder or great bodily harm upon defendant, not that he was attempting to. If Defendant was not in reasonable fear of the danger of imminent death or GBH, then the MDMA in victim's system is irrelevant.

Movement – The expert for movement was an attempt to discredit the prosecution's argument that Victim's actions did not cause rise to a reasonable fear of ID and GBH. If a reasonably prudent and cautions person would not believe the movement caused fear of ID and GBH, then the circumstances would not rise to justifiable use of deadly force. Therefore, the defense had to present some kind of evidence that the movement was or could reasoanably be seen as aggressive and dangerous. Even if the defense was successful, they would still need to prove it rose to the level of ID and GBH. 

The Shove – this was an attempt by the defense to prove the circumstances rose to a reasonable belief of ID or GBH. Whether or not this was a battery or assault is irrelevant unless the act constituted a forcible felony. (If it did, then there is another provision for justfiable use of deadly force that could be used). Simple battery/assault is not a forcible felony. Therefore, a reasonably prudent and cautious person would have to believe a shove causes a reasoable fear of ID or GBH. If this were true, children on playgrounds could theoretically kill each other for shoving each other to the ground. Obviously, that is not reasonable.

All of this put together is a review of the totality of the circumstances that demonstrates the jury made the correct decision in finding that this was manslaughter without legal justification or excuse (I didn't break down the excuses because they are for accidents, which don't apply here)..


Good summary. I think the state should have made their case though without lying that it wasn't assault.
8/27/19 9:22 PM
7/12/03
Posts: 10801
ImNotSurprisedDonks - 
Elon's Musk -
Samoa - 

Bitch made pussy ass mark. A CCW holder with his weapon provokes an issue over a parking spot and can't get it from the shoulder so he shoots and kills a man. 

Don't get into a confrontation with someone because they park in a handicapped spot. Especially don't create a confrontation over a handicapped parking spot when you're carrying your fuckin gun. 

 

He didn't provoke an issue. The person who parked in the handicap spot is the person who provoked and started the issue.

That's not his job to enforce that.  He clearly felt brave because he was carrying, much like wannabe cop George Zimmerman.  I am 100% certain just showing the gun would have prevented the now dead guy from acting further, but gun guy was offended, embarrassed and looking for revenge.  That was straight up murder and generally what happens in these "stand your ground" cases - wherein the person shot was never given the chance to surrender.  The guy should have atleast given the guy a chance to get on the ground, call the cops and then sue his ass for assault and battery in court, or if he shot he should have shot a leg, not the chest.


Considering that Trayvon came back and violently assaulted Zimmerman it turned out that he needed the gun, feeling brave or not isnt relevant.
8/27/19 9:24 PM
7/12/03
Posts: 10802

^^Shooting the leg isnt really an option. BTW, I am not defending this guy, he was in the wrong to shoot when there was no immediate threat

Edited: 8/27/19 11:43 PM
12/3/10
Posts: 165
Strangleu -

Lol at cbs for mentioning race.

black on white crime is a large multiple of white on black crime and race is NEVER EVER mentioned 

what a disgusting joke the msm is

Race was inversely brought up numerous times in this thread.