We saw the video from a different angle than the victim saw it. The guy could have been turning. hiding a gun. It's not supposed to be a quick draw contest. I don't think he'll be convicted.
Sorry another poster had stated multiple shots were fired at the assailant after he was initially hit. He's someone I should have known not to have trusted to tell the truth.
ironic, considering your earlier post saying that in the future all current govt. employees may need to be killed and millions of folks may need to be killed simply due to their political views. sudden change of heart ay?
he initiated the incident with a potentially lethal attack. Cite? Edit: found it myself: https://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-florida-parking-space-shooter-road-rage-records The defense is getting much harder with these allegations.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article216594460.html In court documents, McCabe and Pinellas sheriff's Detective George Moffett cited three other drivers who said Drejka threatened them during confrontations that preceded his run-in with McGlockton. Two of them said he displayed a gun. A black man who drives a septic truck told Moffett he parked in the same handicapped-accessible spot three months before McGlockton's shooting, the documents show. The man said Drejka began yelling at him and said he would shoot him. The driver said he left, but as he pulled away Drejka shouted racial slurs. The man's boss told Moffett that Drejka later called, telling him "that he was lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off." In separate 2012 cases, drivers reported that Drejka waved a gun at them during road rage confrontations. In both cases, officers stopped Drejka and found a gun in his car, but he denied showing it to the other drivers.
No doubt, or even charge him with brandishing. It looks like witnesses weren't available to make a full legal case, though.
Ironically, Israeli spies, disloyal "Israel Firsters" & Right Wing Zionist lobbies pose a far greater threat to: "...the safety & security of the Republic" than America's collection of dimwitted Neo-Nazis & low brow KKK members. "Israel spies on U.S. more than any other ally" http://mondoweiss.net/2014/05/israel-spies-other/ "Stealing Success Tel Aviv Style" http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/01/27/stealing-success-tel-aviv-style/ EXCERPT "That is the significant advantage that Israel has gained by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. The US developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against American companies. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of a US adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that are believed to incorporate technology developed by American companies, including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile."CONTINUED
If they could have made a case without witnesses, they may have. The earlier incidences do not appear to have had a threat; the last instance is more of a gray area. Now it's up to a jury to decide.
See 1st amendment. Thinking or speaking is not actionable. They have to DO and something that's illegal at that. Being trash is protected speech.
The officers themselves can testify, can't they? As could the witnesses to the previous incidents? IANAL.
The witnesses to the actual statements could testify and those actual statements would come in as admissions by party opponent. The police reports can't come in, they're hearsay. The cops could testify to anything they had personal knowledge of. So they could talk about what was reported (I was sent to investigate report of X crime) but not what was claimed to be said because he didn't hear it (hearsay) but I gotta tell you NO CHARGES WERE FILED because there was never enough evidence. That will be pointed out on cross, and every issue those cops ever had put under a microscope. The only real use is to try to jam him up about it on the stand and make him deny things in front of the jury, try to get him angry. Even that is shaky as he doesn't actually have to testify.
I sense the witnesses are going to do a "Hands up, don't shoot", type of witness testimony, making stuff up to add to the confrontation. This will be attacked in court. We can only wait and see.
So you agree with Stand your Ground laws then? In FL, the standard is that you can use deadly force to stop any violent felony. That said, I disagree that an attacker has to have a gun or a knife to be considered dangerous. Below is the link to the actual "Stand your Ground" law, the deadly force part being bolded by me: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
Which are not a defense to assault etc. They are only actionable if they constitute a threat, making them independently actionable not because they were trash but because they violated your rights by making an imminent threat. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZO.html They can stop defamation, which is when you hold a malicious falsehood out as objective fact. They cannot do so to such things held out as opinion. Opinions don't violate rights. You need far more than that. Particularly in the context of political speech, fighting words are almost meaningless. See the Phelps case. See Brandenburg v ohio. Etc.
