'Stand your ground' law, Edit: Drejka Found Guilty 8/23/19

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:54 pm

You and the others seem to have an interest in
the shooters back ground, no mention of the one shot.

If you feel it's cool knocking people on their ass blindsiding them wouldn't advised it you might get shot.

Let's see what the jury finds
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby marvin8 on Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:15 pm

windwalker wrote:You and the others seem to have an interest in
the shooters back ground, no mention of the one shot.

If you feel it's cool knocking people on their ass blindsiding them wouldn't advised it you might get shot.

Let's see what the jury finds

The prosecutor is interested in the shooter's back ground. Since, it can be relevant to the case. The one shot's background is inadmissible in court.

I edited my post.
marvin8 wrote:The shooter's history is admissible in court. However, the defender's history/background is inadmissible. Because, Drejka had no knowledge of McGlockton's background at the time of the shooting.


If you feel it's cool shooting and killing someone unjustifiably, wouldn't advised it you might spend 25 years to 30 years maximum in prison and ruin the victim's family's life.
Last edited by marvin8 on Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:38 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:27 pm

marvin8 wrote:
windwalker wrote:You and the others seem to have an interest in
the shooters back ground, no mention of the one shot.

If you feel it's cool knocking people on their ass blindsiding them wouldn't advised it you might get shot.

Let's see what the jury finds

The prosecutor is interested in the shooter's back ground. Since, it can be relevant to the case. The one shot's background is inadmissible in court.

I edited my post.
marvin8 wrote:The shooter's history is admissible in court. However, the defender's history/background is inadmissible. Because, Drejka had no knowledge of McGlockton's background at the time of the shooting.


If you feel it's cool shooting and killing someone unjustifiably, wouldn't advised it you might spend 25 years to life in prison and ruin the victim's family's life.



It is said "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

The guy was attacked and responded.
The jury will decide if was correct or not.

Victim? The guy who attacked is now the victim.
Very orwellian.

It would be good to know if the guy had any gang affiliations a history of assaulting people ect.
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:46 pm

"marvin8 wrote:
The shooter's history is admissible in court. However, the defender's history/background is inadmisable

https://youtu.be/mkOfqIXkBRE

This video was not used in that case?
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:04 pm

If you feel it's cool shooting and killing someone unjustifiably, wouldn't advised it you might spend 25 years to life in prison and ruin the victim's family's life.


How do you know it was unjustified. Innocent until proven guilty. He has been charged the charge has not been proven.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby Steve James on Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:23 am

If you feel it's cool knocking people on their ass blindsiding them wouldn't advised it you might get shot.


If you feel that knocking someone down means that you can kill them, it's sad. If someone threatened your wife and you pushed him, I guess that means it'd be ok for him to shoot you.

Btw, the "jury" will be ordinary people like everyone else here. Marvin pointed out the Florida state charge for manslaughter. That's what the prosecutor has to prove. "Stand your ground" might be used as a defense. If the jury is like the internet, there'll be someone who says that defense is valid, no matter what is shown on the video.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:04 pm

Steve James wrote:
If you feel it's cool knocking people on their ass blindsiding them wouldn't advised it you might get shot.


If you feel that knocking someone down means that you can kill them, it's sad. If someone threatened your wife and you pushed him, I guess that means it'd be ok for him to shoot you. wow, newspeak is strong here... Threatened, victim, pushed. It means that watching the clip the guy was in argument with some one who happened to park there feeling they could. Another guy blindsides the him, knocking him off his feet for reasons not known to the person knocked down, he responded not understanding why he was attacked.

Btw, the "jury" will be ordinary people like everyone else here. Marvin pointed out the Florida state charge for manslaughter. That's what the prosecutor has to prove. "Stand your ground" might be used as a defense. If the jury is like the internet, there'll be someone who says that defense is valid, no matter what is shown on the video. what is shown on the clip is a judgement call that will be determined by a jury based on their experience and judgement. If one of them was attacked and put in the hospital they might see something a little different then someone sitting behind a computer screen sipping a latte


If found guilty he can be given a lesser sentence not the max.

What is shown on the clip is a guy who was
attacked shooting the guy who attacked him.

Whether it was justified will be something that the jury will decide.

If you feel its okay to sneak up on someone and knock them down, go for it....In some places you may get shot.
If someone threatened my wife, I would remove my wife from the threat or remove the threat.
If someone was arguing with my wife. I wouldn't bum rush them and knock them down,,,people can get shot doing
that...

It's been known to happen. :-\
Last edited by windwalker on Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby marvin8 on Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:05 pm

windwalker wrote:
Steve James wrote:
If you feel it's cool knocking people on their ass blindsiding them wouldn't advised it you might get shot.


If you feel that knocking someone down means that you can kill them, it's sad. If someone threatened your wife and you pushed him, I guess that means it'd be ok for him to shoot you. wow, newspeak is strong here... Threatened, victim, pushed. It means that watching the clip the guy was in argument with some one who happened to park there feeling they could. Another guy blindsides the him, knocking him off his feet for reasons not known to the person knocked down, he responded not understanding why he was attacked.

Btw, the "jury" will be ordinary people like everyone else here. Marvin pointed out the Florida state charge for manslaughter. That's what the prosecutor has to prove. "Stand your ground" might be used as a defense. If the jury is like the internet, there'll be someone who says that defense is valid, no matter what is shown on the video. what is shown on the clip is a judgement call that will be determined by a jury based on their experience and judgement. If one of them was attacked and put in the hospital they might see something a little different then someone sitting behind a computer screen sipping a latte


If found guilty he can be given a lesser sentence not the max.

I edited my post. If found guilty of manslaughter, Drejka faces a mandatory minimum of 25 years to a maximum of 30 years in prison.

You seem to ignore what has been posted (e.g., videos, statements, documents, etc.), the key facts and specifics of the case.

windwalker wrote:What is shown on the clip is a guy who was
attacked shooting the guy who attacked him.

What is shown on the clips specifically is Drejka shooting McGlockton whom:
marvin8 wrote:It is clear McGlockton took 4 steps back increasing the distance between them and turned away, as Drejka pulled his gun out.


windwalker wrote:Whether it was justified will be something that the jury will decide.

My point was the shooting is not legally justified per Florida law, given the facts up to this point. However, a six person jury can acquit or hang. That doesn't mean they made the correct decisions.

windwalker wrote:If you feel its okay to sneak up on someone and knock them down, go for it....In some places you may get shot.

It is not okay. Pushing someone is a misdemeanor assault. However, Drejka shooting McGlockton while he is backing up and turning away is felony manslaughter. Drejka used a disproportionate amount of force at the very least. Apparently, Drejka understands this and stated to the police that: "He saw his legs and said he made a twitch towards him and he fired the gun in self-defense."

The relevant question (not necessarily what Drejka says) is:
marvin8 wrote:The question will be: Did Drejka believe he was in danger of “imminent death or great bodily harm” when he pulled the trigger, shot and killed McGlockton? Given the video, past incidents, witnesses and Drejka's own statements so far, it is not reasonable to believe that.


Michael Drejka's request for lower bond denied - Court hearing today.
Starting @ 9:43, covers some of the the statements in the charging document.

ABC Action News
Published on Aug 23, 2018:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsLUrmbs0hY

An interview with attorney Bryant Camareno on JULY 24, 2018, before being appointed Drejka's attorney:
https://wild941.com/episodes/attorney-bryant-r-camareno/
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:46 pm

"My point was the shooting is not legally justified per Florida law, given the facts up to this point. However, a six person jury can acquit or hang. That doesn't mean they made the correct decisions."

My point is that until it goes to trial its not clear as to whether it was justified or not. You seem to feel if they'er not in agreement with you as to outcome any decision is not the correct one..


It is not okay. Pushing someone is a misdemeanor assault. However, Drejka shooting McGlockton while he is backing up and turning away is felony manslaughter. Drejka used a disproportionate amount of force at the very least. Apparently, Drejka understands this and stated to the police that: "He saw his legs and said he made a twitch towards him and he fired the gun in self-defense."


And now he's turning away....wow You must have the clip they didn't show. whats next ? he didn't bum rush him throwing him down, the guy tripped and he was shot trying to help him to stand up.

Worked with weapons before as job requirement....If a persons hands are not up or out to their sides its not clear as to their intention.

More so for someone who just attacked for no apparent reason blindsiding them. Its very easy to cover ground maybe more so then most think or know.
In most cases pulling a weapon and not using it if the intention is not clear, often results in a struggle for control of the weapon.

lets see what a jury says...
Last edited by windwalker on Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:57 pm

It is not okay. Pushing someone is a misdemeanor assault. However, Drejka shooting McGlockton while he is backing up and turning away is felony manslaughter. Drejka used a disproportionate amount of force at the very least. Apparently, Drejka understands this and stated to the police that: "He saw his legs and said he made a twitch towards him and he fired the gun in self-defense."


Understand what? the guys intention was not clear, he reacted...he was there on the ground looking up.
your watching a clip



You don't seem to understand not being clear when someone has a weapon drawn on you means you may be shot
or if your the one with the weapon it may be taken from you and your shot.

Especially if it happens to be the person who just bum rushed out of no where....not exactly a situation where
intentions that are not clear can be trusted.

why do you feel he shot him?
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby grzegorz on Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:17 am

Pointless conversation but igonrance is no excuse, trained LEO or not, this is manslaughter not SD.

Trump supporters turning Drejka into a hero, how are we not surprised?
Last edited by grzegorz on Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 6588
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Tuck Frump

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:45 am

grzegorz wrote:Pointless conversation but igonrance is no excuse, trained LEO or not, this is manslaughter not SD.

Trump supporters turning Drejka into a hero, how are we not surprised?


Not really, it always seems that on a discussion board where differences of opinions can be discussed.
Some feel the need to seek validation for their viewpoints by suggesting others have a political affiliation
that has nothing to do with the thread.

No its not manslaughter until its been proven as such.

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Last edited by windwalker on Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby Steve James on Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:54 am

No its not manslaughter until its been proven as such.


Yep, and OJ is innocent ;)
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby marvin8 on Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:18 am

Steve James wrote:
No its not manslaughter until its been proven as such.


Yep, and OJ is innocent ;)

. . . by a jury of nine black jurors, one hispanic and two white. In the O.J. case, there was no video.

In the Drejka case, we have video of the shooting and Drejka's own definition of justifiable shooting (stated in police interview and request of lower bond hearing) and past documented incidents of Drejka using his gun in an unreasonable fashion.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby Steve James on Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:48 am

Yep, no video of OJ. And, Manafort would have been convicted on all counts except for one hold out. Doesn't "prove" he was innocent, just that he wasn't found guilty.

In the case of a jury with video evidence, obviously it was enough to charge him. I.e., a group of citizens decided that it was a crime. If he's convicted, it means a case has been proven, but the decision itself is not "proof." The jury decision didn't prove OJ didn't kill those two people. It's just that the prosecution didn't "prove" that he did.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests