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

And one can easily pull the trigger of the gun pointed at a person who decides to charge a person pointing a gun at him. The shooter is a chicken ****

 

Hahahahaha...yes...an unarmed man was buying time to attack a guy pointing a gun at him. I'm going by what we all see in the video. You're going by a 'tough guy' scenario you made up in your head.

 

If the attacker had continued the attack I'd say it would be merited. I think the second a gun is drawn and the attacker ceases the attack, especially for as long as it happened in this attack - then deadly force is not justified.

I think when you're threatened with death, ie, had the attacker been armed, it's different.

This was a vicious shove, no doubt. But I do not agree that it merited a response with deadly force.

 

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have the guts. That's when people get their firearms taken from them by an attacker because they really didn't have it in them to pull the trigger when it was time to do so.

 

You say that like you feel a man isn't dangerous unless he has a gun...

 

More 'what ifs'. I deal in reality. The reality is the guy was backing away. The shooter was a typical chicken ****

 

He was not disengaging. That's reality.

 

His actions show otherwise. It's actually in the video. Sounds like you ARE just like Drejka

 

I love how violent assault is interpreted as provoking by the left. Dont want to get a bullet in the chest, keep your hands off other people. Real real easy.

 

I saw the shooting, he was advancing on the guy until he got shot. You dont know if hes going to grab a rock next....like the guy did that just killed a MA cop here last sunday or stop his attack. This advance was after he had already knocked the guy to the ground. A previous poster factually put the timeline of events down that you can confirm for yourself.

 

No he wasn't. You're flat out lying. He was backing away when he got shot.

 

A ma cop was just killed because he hesitated and the guy hit him with a rock took his gun and shot him 5 times in the face and five times in the chest, he then shot a woman standing in her living room for the fun of it. This is why when a gun is drawn in protection its best to shoot first than be the victim. This choice was made by the attacker not the defender. Obviously the law agrees with me and not you.

 

I'd change my vote if I could. I voted yes, but upon viewing the video again, the victim is backing away as he shoots. He was justified to take out his firearm, but not to shoot in that instance.

 

Utter nonsense. He stopped advancing when he saw the gun. You're denying facts.

 

You are interpreting what you saw incorrectly.

 

no he turned sideways to avoid getting shot....Too late. Bang!.....one less thug

 

what time did he back away prior to getting shot. i just watched it again to double check.

 

Where did you hear this? Cite?

 

So he wasn’t backing away when the gun was pulled?

 

Lie to yourself all you like. We ain’t buying it.

 

At 0:13 the attacker is already backing up. At 0:14 the gun is drawn. At 0:15 the attacker is really backing up. At 0:16 the man is shot.

3 seconds, in a situation like this, is a lifetime. Drejka, again, has done this before. He's instigated this before. He's threatened people before.

The attacker is backing up for a full 2 seconds before Drejka shoots him. Stepping backwards can put a decent distance between people, and any reasonable person is not going to shoot someone who is actively backing up.

That's why "fear for my life" is a fraudulent point, especially in this shooting. If McGlockton kept advancing, starting winding up to hit him, etc, it would make sense.

IF this goes to trial (And I am absolutely, 100% positive there will be a wrongful death suit against Drejka,) you can rest assured Drejka's previous threats of harm will be brought up in arguments, and, the lapse in time, the pause in time, where the now victim is backing away from Drejka when he saw the gun.

 

Immaterial.
All that matters is what you saw in the video, and what you did not hear in th e video.

 

You do not understand SYG laws.

 

It means you get to kill someone if you're a chicken ****

 

You continue to speak from ignorance. "Reasonable fear" is not unique to SYG, but inherent to all self-defense laws.

Like in any other version of self-defense, the threshold is "reasonable fear" - if the state does not believe you have a reasonable fear it will charge you with a crime and put you in front of a jury; if the jury believes you do not have a reasonable fear, it will convict you.