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

Ah. You won't answer the question. Enough said.

This will turn out to be a legal shoot; your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

If that were the case you;d explain how what I posted in in error.
Instead, you ignore them and continue to expose your willful ignorance.

 

My question was the answer. I reject the premise of your inquiry in its entirety.

 

To be clear, you watched this video and did not see a violent assault when this guy shoved the other guy violently to the concrete? Correct?

 

Another sibstanc free post. It’s been three responses since you even mentioned the law or the push shooting. When does this begin to qualify as bald faced trolling?

 

Yes. You avoided the question because you know you have no meaningful response.

This will turn out to be a legal shoot; your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

This will turn out to be a legal shoot; your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

Your question was rejected based on its skewed premise. The law enforcement officer is biased and has a personal stake in his conclusion. He is a flawed source that is dismissed out of hand.

Again, at what point does your method of argument cross the line into trolling?

 

Stop ignoring the aggressors past.

There is a disagreement regarding "dazed".
No one knows for sure.

 

You know cannot show any of that to be true, and so your 'rejection' is noting more than desperate avoidance - you simply do not want to answer the question.

This will turn out to be a legal shoot; your opinion to the contrary means nothing.

 

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

You condone willful murder.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

I know you hate the fact your opinion doesn't matter, but there's nothing I can do about that.

 

I saw an interview of a Black lady who was an O.J. juror who said if she "knew" some of
the materials not presented to the Jury, she would change her vote to "guilty".
But, both of you voted already. Isn't trial by (ignorant) peers a wonderful thing?
Move along now.

Specifically it was the autopsy pictures of Nicole's breast enhancers being cut out.
O.J. had a well known thing for her boobs.

 

Winning? Uh, sure. You're literally arguing that a retreating attacker is still deserving of being shot, and using an instance of a rock being used to stone someone to death in an equivalence to pushing someone on a sidewalk.

Do you hear yourself?

 

"The justification (use of deadly force) is not available to a person who initially provoked the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger."

Drejka was no innocent bystander in this. He was actively provoking the woman in the car.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ckton-michael-drejka-clearwater-a8460376.html

The sheriff has decided not to charge Drejka, but has forwarded the case to county prosecutors for review, who have yet to render a decision.

Those of you who are applauding this murderers actions and the fact that he is a free man today, may be doing so prematurely.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

 

Um... no.

[Sheriff] Gualtieri says there's no evidence that Drejka posed a threat to McGlockton's family, it was strictly a verbal argument, but McGlockton did engage in unlawful conduct when he pushed Drejka.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/us/florida-stand-your-ground-fatal-shooting/index.html

Try again.

No prosecutor in the state of FL will look at this and think he can convince a jury of Floridians that the shooter had no reasonable fear for his life.

Legal shoot.

 

The sheriff isn't a lawyer and can only make recommendations, and the lawyers that do make the decisions have yet to do so.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 

The sheriff's post-investigation statement negates your claim as the mother was not provoked or in any way threatened with the use of force.

No prosecutor in the state of FL will look at this and think he can convince a jury of Floridians that the shooter had no reasonable fear for his life.

Legal shoot.

 

Since no one ever bothered to press charges against Drejka, he has no history of anything. The only one with the history is the one who initiated physical force, who already had one conviction for criminal behavior.

 

Perhaps some minimal component, but his past isn't what he's being investigated for.

 

No, I just won the argument by showing that McGlockton's intent was to continue the assault. McGlockton could have turned and run (the other guy did), McGlockton did not. At that distance McGlockton was still a threat to a person on the ground.

 

Yup.
After the assault, which knocked the shooter off his feet, there need be no immediate follow-up to justify the use of deadly force.
Had the father immediately turned away and left, the story would be different - but he didn't.

 

the absence of a legitimate response on the part of yourself has been duly noted, and the report has been filed regarding the violations of established forum rules. Be silent or more will follow.

 

he wasnt retreating...he only turned his back and ran after he got shot. Do you dispute this? Secondly just because the shooter didnt get killed by smashing his head onto the concrete doesnt mean he couldnt easily have and died. This is a valid shooting. Even the law says you are wrong. you think youre right because like most leftists, they think they can just go around our streets muscling people like the mob wannabees. Thatll get you shot by any armed citizen.