if your feet are pointing the other way, you've turned around. That's pretty much what it means to turn around. His feet are pointed at the car 10' to the left of the shooter.Watch the video that is in real time, without pauses, and you will find that "several seconds" is in fact "two seconds". To me that is a brief enough time for the guy on the ground to be in the moment and not aware that the threat is retreating.
Your assertion that the person is "backing/turning away" is only half right. He was slowly backing away, which as I asserted, the shooter may or may not have been aware of. The prosecution would have to prove that he was aware of it, and could stop himself in the midst of shooting even if he did become aware of the backing up a split second before he shot. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the shooter was not reasonably in fear for his life, not for the defense to prove that he was, so the lack of aggressive motions for two seconds is irrelevant.
The person shot was not, however, turning away. The turn came after the shot. Her is a screen grab of the two people in the instant after the shot.
It's the "reasonable person" standard, and those two seconds of not shooting are going to be huge. The prosecutor will concede everything about "self-defense" right up until he pulled the firearm and didn't shoot it. He had his attacker in his sights with a ready weapon and did nothing. So as a juror, what do you see in those two seconds that a reasonable person would view as a threat?Gonna be difficult to prove that
The fact he didn't fire immediately is irrelevant. Some concealed carriers have inadequate training with their weapons. This guy might have been one with minimal training who took some time to acquire his sights, fumbled with a safety, or whatever. You act like two seconds is an eternity and that everyone can perform at maximum efficiency under incredibly stressful situations. Again, I point to a strong possibility that in the moment he could have still perceived the attacker as a threat. Remember, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the instant of the shot the shooter was not in fear for his life. I'm just not buying it within those parameters.if your feet are pointing the other way, you've turned around. That's pretty much what it means to turn around. His feet are pointed at the car 10' to the left of the shooter.
There's two seconds, and that's 2 seconds of cognition. Cognitive enough to pull a weapon and NOT fire means that you have assessed the threat and it was not a matter of life and death. If he had pulled the weapon and discharged it immediately, I would say he acted within his rights.
But he didn't. He drew and did not engage, which means that in the those two seconds he did not perceive an actionable threat. Nothing the target did from the moment the weapon is drawn until the shot is fired indicates a continuing threat. It's actually the opposite. He shows he hands and moves them away from his body as he backs up. He's turning to walk away when the shot is fired.
You are making the fatal error of confusing "self-defense" with "stand your ground", the latter of which is what applies here.It's the "reasonable person" standard, and those two seconds of not shooting are going to be huge. The prosecutor will concede everything about "self-defense" right up until he pulled the firearm and didn't shoot it. He had his attacker in his sights with a ready weapon and did nothing. So as a juror, what do you see in those two seconds that a reasonable person would view as a threat?
As an armchair juror who only has access to the video, and none of the witness statements or relevant personal history of the participants, I don't see anything. There could be something that sways a reasonable person that I haven't (or might never) see, but just on the video I think reasonable people are going to look at that and say it's manslaughter.
But seriously frens, the NRA is on-board with prosecuting a white guy who claims "self-defense" after being attacked by a large black man.
I think that says a lot.
I was thinking something along these lines as well.The fact he didn't fire immediately is irrelevant. Some concealed carriers have inadequate training with their weapons. This guy might have been one with minimal training who took some time to acquire his sights, fumbled with a safety, or whatever. You act like two seconds is an eternity and that everyone can perform at maximum efficiency under incredibly stressful situations.
no. "Stand Your Ground" statute only shields you from prosecution if a reasonable person would think that lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent injury or death. SYG only prevents a prosecutor from arguing that lethal force was not necessary because there was an avenue of retreat. SYG removes any duty to retreat, but it does not lower the bar of justifiable homicide.You are making the fatal error of confusing "self-defense" with "stand your ground", the latter of which is what applies here.
Never said it lowers the bar of justifiable homicide.no. "Stand Your Ground" statute only shields you from prosecution if a reasonable person would think that lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent injury or death. SYG only prevents a prosecutor from arguing that lethal force was not necessary because there was an avenue of retreat. SYG removes any duty to retreat, but it does not lower the bar of justifiable homicide.
I'm a bit of a gun nut, so I know a lot about SYG laws...especially after Trayvon.Never said it lowers the bar of justifiable homicide.
The initial shove, imo, is going to be enough to say that Drejka was reasonable enough to fear imminent injury or death.
As I've said before, the way this statute works (you're not from Florida so you don't know) is that the prosecution has to DISPROVE stand your ground rather than the defense having to PROVE it.
this sounds reasonable.This is a Florida case so I've been following it. Tbh I wasn't comfortable with the no charge against the guy. You can clearly see McGlockton turning the other way when Drejka pulls out his gun. Drejka then shoots him anyway.
McGlockton was wrong to park in a handicapped parking spot and he was wrong to push Drejka to the ground, but he wasn't going after Drejka when shot.
Lessons have been learned since Zimmerman. That's why Drejka was charged with manslaughter and not murder.
Seems like "reasonable doubt" will be tested here.The shooter's lawyer could argue the guy was just sizing him up to continue the assault.
The prosecution could argue the shooter pulling a gun de-escalated (spelling?) the situation and caused the deceased to retreat.
I wouldn't want to be on the jury.
I'll take your word for it. Both @T-City Parks/Rec Director and @psychicdeath make good points for their respective view point. I would not want to be on that jury.Seems like "reasonable doubt" will be tested here.
At least in theory, that's all that's required for an acquittal.
I'll take your word for it. Both @T-City Parks/Rec Director and @psychicdeath make good points for their respective view point. I would not want to be on that jury.
torn imoTo me, the criminal case seems like a slam dunk. The guy is probably going to get tore up in a civil trial though.
yeah, i went with the vulgate on that expression for emphasistorn imo
Imo, it's pretty easy to be on that jury. He needs to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The guy attacked him out of nowhere, it's not unreasonable to have thought in the moment he was going to do it again.The shooter's lawyer could argue the guy was just sizing him up to continue the assault.
The prosecution could argue the shooter pulling a gun de-escalated (spelling?) the situation and caused the deceased to retreat.
I wouldn't want to be on the jury.
If it was politically driven, the conservative and pro-freedom outlets would be rallying around the shooter.Imo, it's pretty easy to be on that jury. He needs to be proven guilty beyond readorable doubt. The guy attacked him out of nowhere, it's not unreasonable to have thought in the moment he was going to do it again.
For the record, when I first saw the video a few weeks ago I thought it was a bad shoot l amd I still do. But I don't see how the prosecution wins this retroactive case that's very clearly being politically driven.
The shooter wasn't attacked out of no where.
He sought out a confrontation over handicapped parking. Shouldn't be shoved over it, but getting shoved to the ground doesn't justify shooting someone who is moving away.Huh?
Shooter was standing more than an arm's Reach away from the woman's car such that he was zero threat. His feet are planted neutral such that any motion forward or backwards is difficult and hes sort of hunched over with one hand down and one hand kind of gesticulating... Not outstretched. Hot threatening. Not moving towards the vehicle. Flat-footed.
In fact, the girlfriend approaches him first.
The guy who pushed him had absolutely zero reason to do so other than he was an over aggressive idiot that starts fights if anybody dare correct him or his girlfriend.
His girlfriend was in the wrong.
The guy pushing him was in the wrong.
I believe the shooter was in the wrong, however I still think good points are made he will probably get off.
Is verbally calling somebody out for illegal and unethical Behavior "seeking a confrontation"?He sought out a confrontation over handicapped parking. Shouldn't be shoved over it, but getting shoved to the ground doesn't justify shooting someone who is moving away.
Do you believe the shooter would be charged if there hadn't been race related protests?If it was politically driven, the conservative and pro-freedom outlets would be rallying around the shooter
Yes. The sheriff's decision to not arrest was not correct, and his reasons were immediately identified as bullshit by the representatives who drafted the legislation, the lobbyists who supported it, and legal scholars around the US.Do you believe the shooter would be charged if there hadn't been race related protests?