• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So.... good shoot?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Atreus21 said:
Not so. You cant simply say you feared for your life. Your belief has to be a reasonable fear for your life, otherwise any physical altercation, or even a severe verbal one, merits a deadly response. I don't see how anyone watches that video and deems the shooter's reaction to be based on a reasonable fear for his life, especially considering that he instigated the incident.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can simply state that you feared for you life. At that point if charges are brought, it would be up the the jury to decide if Drejka's fear was reasonable in that moment. Note that this is different than what you as a juror think he should have believed.
 
To be clear I’m not defending the shooter in the moral sense. Maybe he was ok legally but that is neither here nor there. No doubt he is a hate filled asshole (hate for himself at the deepest level). But the other asshole was kind of asking for it.

Also the boyfriend should have been driving. A working woman with kids, life is hard enough. Guys should do everything possible to take load off such women. Too many guys taking advantage of women. I know several cases personally
 
Last edited:
Jovec said:
Yes, you can simply state that you feared for you life. At that point if charges are brought, it would be up the the jury to decide if Drejka's fear was reasonable in that moment. Note that this is different than what you as a juror think he should have believed.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. the only thought that went through the shooter's head when his ass hit the pavement was "You're dead, N*****."
 
Jovec said:
Perhaps, but it does not matter because this case isn't about intent.
Click to expand...

Of course it's about intent & plausible deniability of it. Drejka was gonna shoot somebody, sooner or later, & McGlockton gave him the opportunity to get away with it under Florida law.
 
Jovec said:
Yes, you can simply state that you feared for you life. At that point if charges are brought, it would be up the the jury to decide if Drejka's fear was reasonable in that moment. Note that this is different than what you as a juror think he should have believed.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why charges should've been brought. That police didn't do so is incredible. The man instigates a confrontation, gets shoved, and then kills the shover.

Do you think, looking at the video, that the man had reasonable fear for his life? If you were the police would you also decline to bring charges?
 
Jhhnn said:
Oh, please. the only thought that went through the shooter's head when his ass hit the pavement was "You're dead, N*****."
Click to expand...

You are probably right. Lots of self hating cowards try to feel better about themselves through guns. And they want nothing more than the opportunity to use it. Unlike responsible people, these *want* to use their guns. Itching for the opportunity. This is a particular kind of sickness probably unique to America because guns are available so freely like candy. These people think they are tough macho men. Sick is what they are.
 
Jhhnn said:
So what? It didn't happen.
Click to expand...
I sure feel lucky that the guy throwing me to the pavement didn’t cause me to have a potentially fatal head injury!

I don’t agree that a deadly response was necessary, but neither was violently escalating the situation over a verbal altercation.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
I sure feel lucky that the guy throwing me to the pavement didn’t cause me to have a potentially fatal head injury!

I don’t agree that a deadly response was necessary, but neither was violently escalating the situation over a verbal altercation.
Click to expand...

Which resulted in someone's death, though?
 
TheVrolok said:
Which resulted in someone's death, though?
Click to expand...
There were many ways this could have played out. Unecessarily escalating a situation by blind siding someone and throwing them to the pavement in a stand your ground heavily armed state seems like a good way to get shot.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Yes I saw a man violently thrown to the ground on pavement, which could result in deadly head trauma.
Click to expand...

The video clearly shows a shove.
The man was not thrown to the ground.
A rough push is just that. That forceful push resulted in the man losing his balance.
No one can prove that the intent was to cause the man to fall to the ground.
 
pauldun170 said:
The video clearly shows a shove.
The man was not thrown to the ground.
A rough push is just that. That forceful push resulted in the man losing his balance.
No one can prove that the intent was to cause the man to fall to the ground.
Click to expand...

That is such a BS statement. Saying that a larger, younger man forcefully pushing an older, smaller, fat man has no intention of knocking him to the ground is as full of shit as saying the white man on the ground had no intention of killing the black man when he shot that guy who was slowly backing away from seeing the gun. Both parties had harmful intentions going into their action, one just had a more lethal intent than the other.
 
DrunkenSano said:
That is such a BS statement. Saying that a larger, younger man forcefully pushing an older, smaller, fat man has no intention of knocking him to the ground is as full of shit as saying the white man on the ground had no intention of killing the black man when he shot that guy who was slowly backing away from seeing the gun. Both parties had harmful intentions going into their action, one just had a more lethal intent than the other.
Click to expand...

I'm simply stating the facts as presented by the evidence.
No one can prove intent because the shover is dead.

If you want to play the guessing game of intent then you probably can whip other posters into a frenzy.
I'm not one of them
 
pauldun170 said:
I'm simply stating the facts as presented by the evidence.
No one can prove intent because the shover is dead.

If you want to play the guessing game of intent then you probably can whip other posters into a frenzy.
I'm not one of them
Click to expand...

You are simply stating the facts as you interpret them, not as is. Which is what is done in court as well, the prosecution wants to help the jury interpret the evidence in a way to have the defendant be found guilty. The defense will help the jury interpret the evidence the other way. Pretending your way is the only way is dumb. We can't prove intent because the initial aggressor is dead. We can't get inside the white man's head to really know if he was in fear of his life or not. I would think most people would interpret the evidence that the white guy wasn't fearing for his life when he was shot but I also think most people would interpret that the black man did intend to knock the white guy to the ground with how much force he put into the push. It wasn't a shoulder bump, it wasn't a nudge, it was a solid push with his legs planted.

You're playing the game just like everyone else here is that is trying to spin it to their version.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
There were many ways this could have played out. Unecessarily escalating a situation by blind siding someone and throwing them to the pavement in a stand your ground heavily armed state seems like a good way to get shot.
Click to expand...

How do you blindside somebody putting both hands on their chest? Inquiring minds want to know
 
Florida needs to figure out how far they want to take their stance on stand your ground.
Here is a case where a man with a pattern of harassment has created another disturbance while harrasing a women and her children for standing in a handicap parking spot.
A patron alerts the father\boyfriend that his girlfriend along with his children are being harassed.
He comes out of the store and shoves the man.
The man falls.
When the man reaches for his pocket, the boyfriend\father begins to retreat.
When the gun is drawn, the man is in retreat.

Florida needs to decide if shooting someone who is retreating is justified under their law.
 
This case seems so cut and dried. The man committed murder. Period. He was not at risk of further assault.

The man who pushed him should (If he had lived), of course, been charged with assault and spend some time in prison, or anger management. But the push, while wrong, was not followed up with a flurry of more punches and when the gun was pulled up and pointed at him, he immediately retreated in a way that any normal sane person would do when someone points a gun at you "Don't Shoot!", and at least two seconds after this, the other guy pulls the trigger. 2 seconds is a long time in these circumstances as time slows down (perception of it)...

We can all agree the first guy should not have assaulted the man. But, I would have logically thought everyone here would have agreed that the man should not have shot at a retreating person. This man had a gun and was just waiting to use it. He is going to get away with legal murder. That is such a shame.

I mean, some of these scenarios are understandably hard the judge. This one isn't. This one is clear as day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top