Chuck64 wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:58 pm Don’t know if this has been mentioned but the Sheriff is a attorney.

https://www.pcsoweb.com/sheriff-bob-gualtieri-2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mark O'Mara, the lawyer who helped put "stand your ground" in the national lexicon when he defended George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, is quick to point out that he didn't use the defense and isn't an avid fan of Florida's law. The statute is under intense scrutiny again more than six years later – this time after a fatal altercation over a handicapped parking space outside a Clearwater convenience store. Video from the scene a week ago shows Markeis McGlockton, a black father of three, push Michael Drejka, who is white, to the ground. Drejka draws a handgun and fires one shot. McGlockton stumbles away and later died.

On Thursday, Benjamin Crump, who represents McGlockton's family, expressed outrage over the decision not to charge Drejka and called for changes to Florida's "discriminatory" statute. "We are here to demand justice for the cold-blooded murder of Markeis McGlockton by the self-appointed, wannabe cop Michael Drejka," Crump said. "This follows a long line of these alleged stand-your-ground murders in the state of Florida." Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, in announcing his decision to file no charges, has said the law grants immunity from arrest.

O'Mara said he understands why Gualtieri didn't arrest Drejka, who has a concealed-carry permit and who could have faced thousands of dollars in legal fees. An improper arrest might have left the the sheriff's office vulnerable in a civil case, O'Mara said. "Look, the reason the sheriff didn't make an arrest is that he could potentially be sued," O'Mara said. He said that as a defense lawyer he has no problem with the law: It could help his clients. But as a person, he isn't so sure. "The problem I have is that people misinterpret the statute and are emboldened to use a gun," he said. "Look at this case. Pointing the gun? Absolutely. Shooting a warning shot? Fine. But shooting him?"

Most states have some form of a stand-your-ground law. Florida's says people have no “duty to retreat” if they believe deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. The law also provides immunity from arrest, prosecution and civil liability for people who invoke the law. Officers are prevented from arresting a person who used deadly force unless they determine probable cause exists that the force was illegal. And in 2017, Florida lawmakers switched the burden of proof to prosecutors when the statute is invoked. Florida's statute requires that circumstances be viewed from the perspective of the shooter, O'Mara said. Drejka was knocked down. He was afraid. His heart was racing and, O'Mara said, Drejka's judgment was impaired.

O'Mara is not involved in the Clearwater case but knows Crump well. When Zimmerman shot Martin in February 2012 after a struggle on a street in Sanford, O'Mara defended Zimmerman. Zimmerman was 28 and a Neighborhood Watch leader. Martin was 17, black and unarmed. Crump represented Martin's family. The case drew the national spotlight and, when Zimmerman said he had feared for his life, that light shone on stand your ground. His acquittal set off protests across the nation, but O'Mara said Zimmerman had the law firmly on his side. And the law wasn't stand your ground.

"Stand your ground only applies if you have the opportunity to flee," O'Mara said. "Zimmerman was on his back. It was strictly self-defense." Centuries-old legal principles dictate that when a person is confronted with a possible threat to his or her safety in a public place, the person must retreat before using deadly force if doing so is practical and safe. Stand your ground changes the rules. "I still like the idea that we have, if not an obligation, at least a suggestion that we try to avoid using a gun until the last possible moment," O'Mara said. There have been other notable stand-your-ground cases in Florida. In 2014, a dispute in a movie theater ended in the fatal shooting of theatergoer Chad Oulson. Curtis Reeves, a retired police officer, faces trial next year on a charge of second-degree murder. Courts have thus far rejected the stand-your-ground defense in the case.

And former Palm Beach Gardens police officer Nouman Raja’s effort to invoke the statute in the October 2015 shooting death of stranded motorist Corey Jones also has thus far been rejected. In Clearwater, Gualtieri said Drejka, 47, was cooperative in the investigation. He told officers that "after being slammed to the ground, he felt he was going to be further attacked," the sheriff said. If the races had been reversed in the Clearwater case, Crump said, a black shooter would have been charged. O'Mara said racial bias is undeniable, in people and in the criminal justice system. And he said there are lessons to be learned, from not parking in handicapped spaces to leaving enforcement of laws to law enforcement.

"Will we learn anything from all of the lessons presented by this one bullet? If history is a teacher, the answer is no," O'Mara said. "But maybe someday some bullet will actually strike us in a place where we will not only shed a tear, but stop, change direction and listen more to the laws of God."

Evo1 wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:08 am But notice that Florida law doesn't require a reasonable belief that a threat is imminent. That's a lawyer's distraction. The law requires a reasonable belief that lethal force is necessary; not optional, not acceptable, not expedient, but necessary. There has to be a reasonable belief that you have no other choice (except to try to flee, which SYG takes care of). Here, again, is the relevant text of the Florida law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.012.html

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

If the circumstances don't support a reasonable belief that you had no choice but to use lethal force, then it doesn't matter if you believe there is an imminent threat or not, so all that time he spends trying to make a case for such a belief is irrelevant. It is, again, a lawyer's distraction. He's previewing how he would defend the case, but in doing so he's intentionally ignoring the actual wording of the law, and it's primary requirement, because that would damage his hypothetical defense.

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

The set of circumstances that justifies the use of deadly force is a situation of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to oneself or other innocent persons.

NoEyeDeer wrote:I fear that all the gains made when Rosa Parks was too tired after work to give up her seat on a bus could all be undone by Britany Jacobs being too lazy to park properly.

shinzen wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:41 pm

NoEyeDeer wrote:I fear that all the gains made when Rosa Parks was too tired after work to give up her seat on a bus could all be undone by Britany Jacobs being too lazy to park properly.

How exactly are you making that particular leap?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

shinzen wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:06 pm And exactly what kind of catalyst are you saying this will become?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:50 pm WTF didn't Drejka call the police? To get into a shooting fight over a handicapped parking space is just arrogant and stupid. Now he's a killer for no goddam good reason.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:07 pm
Add this: Would Drejka have been so aggressive if he had NOT been carrying a gun or another lethal weapon?

YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:24 pm ... But there was no threat to Drejka's life and his SYG defense is bullshit.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:45 am
Without the gun, this, at most, would be a shove in a parking lot. With it, it's a homicide. I have zero sympathy for Drejka and hope he's charged.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:54 pm There was an old M*A*S*H episode where Hawkeye gets pissed at a cold-blooded statistican, who then presses charges. While that's going on, the statistician gets wounded in the field and in recovery later says he's dropping charges because a push in a bar doesn't amount to much. That's what this was till Drejka turned it into a homicide. I hope he's charged.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.

It is simply a fact that the irresponsible or reckless exercise of any given freedom undermines public support for that liberty. Thus, those who support, say, the First Amendment should be among the most vigilant in exercising those rights virtuously. Those who support the Second Amendment should be unrelenting in preaching responsibility, prudence, and courage. Applying these principles to the McGlockton case, was it reasonable for Drejka to believe his life was in danger after one shove? How about when McGlockton backed away the instant Drejka brandished his gun?

AndyH wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:15 pm Mr. Crump has gotten good at hacking the very real inequality in our country in order to fill his bank account.

Mustang wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:36 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:50 pm WTF didn't Drejka call the police? To get into a shooting fight over a handicapped parking space is just arrogant and stupid. Now he's a killer for no goddam good reason.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:07 pm
Add this: Would Drejka have been so aggressive if he had NOT been carrying a gun or another lethal weapon?

YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:24 pm ... But there was no threat to Drejka's life and his SYG defense is bullshit.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:45 am
Without the gun, this, at most, would be a shove in a parking lot. With it, it's a homicide. I have zero sympathy for Drejka and hope he's charged.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:54 pm There was an old M*A*S*H episode where Hawkeye gets pissed at a cold-blooded statistican, who then presses charges. While that's going on, the statistician gets wounded in the field and in recovery later says he's dropping charges because a push in a bar doesn't amount to much. That's what this was till Drejka turned it into a homicide. I hope he's charged.

So what you are saying, Tarheel, is that all your prior denunciations of Drejka were made without looking at the most significant piece of evidence...the video. I find that fascinating.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.

hondo2K0 wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:57 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.

Those are movies we talking real life there is big difference between real life and movies artistic expression and whatnot
Mcglokton hit drejka with such force that he flew into the pavement pavement is a lethaal weapon doesn't matter do you hot someboy with a chunk of concrete or you showed them onto concrete outcome is the same human body Vs concrete
Real life not movie
For that reason drejka won't be charged he hit concrete and reasonable person(cop lawyer judge prosecutor) see his actions as justified
Cops and prosecutor watch whole event from moment one what they saw is argumentative guy arguing but he is 4to 5 feet from the car he never leans into the car never reach never put hand on the mcglokton s girlfriend or vehicle she is the one who is aggressive she steps out of safety shell aka vehicle and gets into drejka face mcglokton does not talk he hits drejka and sends him flying into pavement mcglokton is violent one in the event you say he was turning away and it is your perception. Drejka seen it as him cocking his body to proceed with attack

As far holding jury hostage again movies not real life expedite trial and all those rights in real life if it is let's say Friday judge tells you that he or she expecting your decision by Monday if there is no decision than 12 24 48 hours extension is granted afteree that mistrial is declared and prosecutor must wage his or her chances in front different jury if it looks like same outcome is more likely or more probable nothing is filled

Evo1 wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:22 pm

hondo2K0 wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:29 am

Evo1 wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:55 pm

hondo2K0 wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:52 pm

Nope, I shall tell him first to get lost and if anybody is going to shoot him it is going to be my wife it is easier for her to verbalize feeling of being in fear for her life and lives of our children. As soon as I put my hands on obnoxious prick first, I became the aggressor and I forfeited my life and well being as they are now defending themselves, even if person provoked an initial confrontation they are still entitled on self-defense as long as their actions were nonphysical.


Was there a threat to Drejka's life or not is subjective as far as I am concerned if somebody struck you so violently that you fall to the ground and in this case attacker blindsided him as it can be seen in the video, a reasonable person has every reason to be in fear for their life as person who hits you once most likely is going to keep hitting you . Expecting for somebody who already acted violently to stop after the first hit is stupid. But as I always tell people:" Feel free to let somebody to use you as a punching bag, just do not expect me to the same."

If Drejka called cops McGlockton would be arrested and charged with assault.
McGlockton failed to learn a simple lesson that any of us taught our kids around age 3-6:"We talk with our words, not our hands and feet, we use our hands and feet to convey message only to those who use their hands and feets instead words to talk"

At the moment he pulled the trigger, there was not an imminent threat to his life, which is what SYG requires. He pushed him to the ground (he shoved him, not punched him, and it doesn't take much to do that if you catch someone off guard), then stepped back and started turning away. Yes, McGlockton assaulted him, but self-defense isn't the same thing as revenge. You don't get to shoot someone to get even. You don't even get to shoot them just because you think he might hurt you later. There has to be a continuing imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, or at least the reasonable belief that such is the case. Simply standing several feet away after having shoved someone doesn't present such a threat. You might be afraid that the guy could continue his assault (though it's unlikely if you're holding a gun on him), but that's not an imminent threat, which is what Florida law requires, and any belief that he might renew his assault is speculative at best, not a reasonable belief, unless he's telegraphing his intent to do so.

Watch the video - McGlockton steps back and turns away slightly, the opposite of a threatening move, and only then does Drejka shoot him. He had time to see that pulling his gun had stopped the assault, which legally ends McGlockton's role as aggressor. Then he decided to shoot. As the sheriff even pointed out, there was a "troubling" delay between pulling the gun and pulling the trigger. Pointing a gun at someone is also assault, and a felony assault at that if not justified. If that assault stops the initial aggressor, you've ended the threat. The fact that Drekja took long enough to make that assessment before he shot, and McGlockton made no threatening move in between, means that Drejka became the aggressor when he fired. While he might have been in reasonable fear for his life at the moment he pulled his gun, he didn't shoot then. He waited until McGlockton stepped back and turned, which removed the imminent component of fear required by SYG.

Was McGlockton wrong to turn the incident physical? Of course. That's just idiotic macho bullshit, and a crime (although only a misdemeanor). But was he presenting an imminent threat to Drejka's life at the moment the trigger was pulled? Not even remotely. This was murder, plain and simple.

In the real world, showing and pushing by the reasonable standard is placing an open hand on to somebodies person and moving them out of your personal space no further than the fully extended arm. McGlockton struck Drejka using speed as he runs up to him, two-handed strike using full force and all body strength for that reason Drejka went flying before he landed on the pavement.
If McGlockton ran away, drove away or was subdued and unable to continue attack then Drejka would be guilty as McGlocton took none of those steps , he was a threat to Drejka , he was towering over him and could commence attack in a blink of the eye.
Totally of the facts is what matters in eyes of the law, Drejka pulled a gun and McGlocton did nothing to show that he is no longer the threat.
Is it a misdemeanor? It depends on Drejka's injuries. Hitting somebody with a closed fist in the chest is simple assault, hitting somebody in the head is a disregard for human health and life and if they lost consciences even for a sec it is aggravated assault.
People need to learn do not put paws on the other people, it can get you killed.
On the other note, your average cop deals with 3 to 5 obnoxious, loud and argumentative people like Drejka every day.

He shoved him. Just because he shoved him hard with both hands and put his weight behind it doesn't make it anything other than a shove. And yes, it's a misdemeanor. Your characterization of aggravated assault is incorrect. Under Florida law, aggravated assault is assault with a deadly weapon (which Drejka committed when he pulled his gun and pointed it), or assault with intent to commit a felony. All other assault is simple assault, and is a misdemeanor http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 4.021.html.

However, even if he had sucker-punched him in the head (which would still be simple assault), this is still not legal self defense for the use of deadly force. You're using the wrong standard, the fake one promulgated by the anti crowd, for assessing what is legal under Florida law. The fact that McGlockton was a potential threat is not enough under the law. SYG does not lower the standard for self defense that has always existed in Florida and pretty much everywhere else in the US. This is a mischaracterization created by anti groups after the law passed to try to discredit it. All SYG did was to formalize the fact that you do not have a duty to retreat, and provide for protections from prosecution if, and only if the act met the already existing standard for justifiable self-defense. No change to that standard was made.

And under that standard, you have to have more than just a fear of injury or death, and the threat has to be more than just possible or even likely. The standard for self defense that has existed for decades through the entire US, and is still the legal standard in Florida, is that you have to believe that the threat of death or serious physical injury is imminent, you have to believe that lethal force is necessary to prevent the imminent threat, and that belief has to be reasonable. See Florida statute 776.012(2) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.012.html.

Drejka's actions failed to meet this standard on all three points. First, while McGlackton could have reinitiated his attack, he wasn't making any moves to do so. He was, in fact, moving back, which signals disengagement. So there was no imminent threat (google the legal meaning of imminent if you disagree*). Second, the use of lethal force was not necessary to stop the threat. McGlockton was already stepping back at the mere threat of lethal force. Unless he started telegraphing an intent to reengage, that threat was already sufficient, which Drejka paused long enough to see, and so lethal force wasn't necessary. And third, given that McGlockton did step back, even if Drejka believed there was still an imminent threat, that belief wasn't reasonable. The sheriff in this case simply failed to do his duty, whether because he is ignorant of the law (wouldn't be the first LEO, or especially CLEO, that's true of), or because he is intentionally mischaracterizing it for political reasons (which is also extremely common). He had clear probable cause to arrest and charge Drejka for criminal homicide, because it wasn't reasonable to believe that there was an imminent threat or that lethal force was necessary to stop it.

Yes, you're right, people need to learn that escalating a disagreement to any level of physical violence is unacceptable. But to abuse reasonable self defense laws by completely misinterpreting them so as to allow vigilante justice, which is what claiming Drejka was even remotely not in the wrong is doing, not only won't teach that lesson, it will ultimately cause those reasonable laws to be overturned.

*To illustrate how this case does not meet the legal standard of 'imminent threat' or 'necessary to prevent' under Florida law, consider how this situation differs from the Travon Martin case. In that case, Martin (according to all available evidence - don't want to argue all the BS conjecture over that) was in the act of slamming Zimmerman's head against the concrete. At that point, serious physical injury was imminent, as in immediate, right now, not simply suppositional or possible at some moment in the future. Florida law explicitly requires that the threat be imminent, not merely possible in the future even in the very near future. Also, Zimmerman was struggling with Martin, and was not apparently not able to stop himself from being physically assaulted by his own strength, and so firing his weapon was arguably necessary to stop the attack. Contrast this with this case - McGlockton was standing several feet away, and had taken a step back and started to turn away (there was another car behind him, so he couldn't keep going back). So, even though his position might have been somewhat threatening, that threat wasn't imminent. At the same time, Drejka already had his gun pointed directly at McGlockton. Had McGlockton started to reengage (which he didn't, making lethal force unnecessary), Drejka had plenty of time and reaction space to use lethal force to stop him. He was under no imminent threat, and lethal force wasn't necessary to prevent his own death or serious physical injury. He was either just scared and reacting out of fear of a potential threat, or he was angry and decided to get his own blow in. Either way, his action clearly did not meet the standard for self defense under Florida law. He committed murder.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:12 am

hondo2K0 wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:57 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.

Those are movies we talking real life there is big difference between real life and movies artistic expression and whatnot
Mcglokton hit drejka with such force that he flew into the pavement pavement is a lethaal weapon doesn't matter do you hot someboy with a chunk of concrete or you showed them onto concrete outcome is the same human body Vs concrete
Real life not movie
For that reason drejka won't be charged he hit concrete and reasonable person(cop lawyer judge prosecutor) see his actions as justified
Cops and prosecutor watch whole event from moment one what they saw is argumentative guy arguing but he is 4to 5 feet from the car he never leans into the car never reach never put hand on the mcglokton s girlfriend or vehicle she is the one who is aggressive she steps out of safety shell aka vehicle and gets into drejka face mcglokton does not talk he hits drejka and sends him flying into pavement mcglokton is violent one in the event you say he was turning away and it is your perception. Drejka seen it as him cocking his body to proceed with attack

As far holding jury hostage again movies not real life expedite trial and all those rights in real life if it is let's say Friday judge tells you that he or she expecting your decision by Monday if there is no decision than 12 24 48 hours extension is granted afteree that mistrial is declared and prosecutor must wage his or her chances in front different jury if it looks like same outcome is more likely or more probable nothing is filled

Sheesh! Give me a BREAK!

I saw the video. Drejka was enraged, furious and out of his head when he pulled that gun and shot the other guy in the chest who WAS MOVING AWAY!
We also know that had the races been reversed, SYG would be denied, the shooter WOULD have been INSTANTLY arrested, and every right-winger in the nation who are now saying NOW that Drejka was justified in claiming SYG, would be denying it even VAGUELY applied to Black shooter.

Because, since SYG was legally implemented, it is only considered when the shooter is White, and almost never when the shooter is Black, no matter the circumstances.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:44 am

Mustang wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:36 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:50 pm WTF didn't Drejka call the police? To get into a shooting fight over a handicapped parking space is just arrogant and stupid. Now he's a killer for no goddam good reason.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:07 pm
Add this: Would Drejka have been so aggressive if he had NOT been carrying a gun or another lethal weapon?

YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:24 pm ... But there was no threat to Drejka's life and his SYG defense is bullshit.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:45 am
Without the gun, this, at most, would be a shove in a parking lot. With it, it's a homicide. I have zero sympathy for Drejka and hope he's charged.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:54 pm There was an old M*A*S*H episode where Hawkeye gets pissed at a cold-blooded statistican, who then presses charges. While that's going on, the statistician gets wounded in the field and in recovery later says he's dropping charges because a push in a bar doesn't amount to much. That's what this was till Drejka turned it into a homicide. I hope he's charged.

So what you are saying, Tarheel, is that all your prior denunciations of Drejka were made without looking at the most significant piece of evidence...the video. I find that fascinating.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.

I take that as a personal insult, mustang, an ad hominem attack.

I based my judgement on the multiple accounts of the event. The video merely confirmed them.
It is evidence, but it is not the only evidence. A jury could easily convict Drejka without ever seeing the video.

I have no idea why you are so willing to give this murderer the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you should explain that.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm I have no idea why you are so willing to give this murderer the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you should explain that.