Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’m tired of arguing with you guys because we will never agree. Don’t pretend be a macho man confronting someone if the only way you can defend yourself is with a gun. If he had minded his own business with something so superfluous a father wouldn’t have died
If that father didn't shove him, he'd be alive too. If they never parked in that handicap spot or Ms Jacobs simply moved when confronted, he'd be alive as well.
Oh well, it's not like this is a big loss to humanity.
I don’t think so. If I feel someone is threatening me and fear for my life than I have a right to shoot them before they do harm to me. That seems to be the case in Florida. In all honesty, wimps should not start a fight if they have to use a gun because they were pushed down.
Wow, just when I respond to one of your posts, you seem to have come along and post an even more absurd one.
For starters, lets say the guy is standing several feet from your car (you and your family are inside) and even if he is verbally threatening you, but makes no attempt to approach and/or open the door, you are not going to be able to justify shooting him.
You would be expected to lock the doors (assuming you were not smart enough to have already done so) and drive away. It is not that you have a duty to retreat, but you also should not stay near someone who might pose a threat to you.
So while you do not have to wait for someone to attack you physically, you'd better have some indicator or proof other than him verbally berating you, that your life was in danger.
Also, I find it ironic you feel the right to use deadly force against someone who has not physically attacked you, yet feel the opposite for someone else who has already been physically attacked.
Now guys are wimps if they CC
I am far from a wimp and people would not mistake me for one, but I CC periodically, and it has nothing to do with being afraid of a physical confrontation.
As I stated early on in this thread, I think the guy should not have shot the assailant from what I now thus far. While I do not think the assailant would have attempted to attack me (like he did the victim in this case), had he done so and blindsided me, I'd get up on my feet, and not reaching for my gun. Even if I were hurt and did pull it, as long as the guy perceptually disengaged from further harming me, I'd have accomplished the goal with brandishing the firearm.
He goes to jail, I get Tx and go home.
By the way, this case has nothing to do with the SYG per se. SYG covers "duty to retreat" - under SYG there is no such duty. I don't think "duty to retreat" came into play here. Drejka had no chance to retreat.
Wow, just when I respond to one of your posts, you seem to have come along and post an even more absurd one.
For starters, lets say the guy is standing several feet from your car (you and your family are inside) and even if he is verbally threatening you, but makes no attempt to approach and/or open the door, you are not going to be able to justify shooting him.
You would be expected to lock the doors (assuming you were not smart enough to have already done so) and drive away. It is not that you have a duty to retreat, but you also should not stay near someone who might pose a threat to you.
So while you do not have to wait for someone to attack you physically, you'd better have some indicator or proof other than him verbally berating you, that your life was in danger.
Also, I find it ironic you feel the right to use deadly force against someone who has not physically attacked you, yet feel the opposite for someone else who has already been physically attacked.
Now guys are wimps if they CC
I am far from a wimp and people would not mistake me for one, but I CC periodically, and it has nothing to do with being afraid of a physical confrontation.
As I stated early on in this thread, I think the guy should not have shot the assailant from what I now thus far. While I do not think the assailant would have attempted to attack me (like he did the victim in this case), had he done so and blindsided me, I'd get up on my feet, and not reaching for my gun. Even if I were hurt and did pull it, as long as the guy perceptually disengaged from further harming me, I'd have accomplished the goal with brandishing the firearm.
He goes to jail, I get Tx and go home.
`
I saw the tape, did you. He was pushed him to the ground and then walked away leaving him alone. He shot him anyway
Don't pretend to be a macho man violently pushing down to the ground someone half your size. That man may have a gun. And be fully justified shooting you.
He may have a gun, but he was NOT justified. If this case goes to trial, I hope they don’t overcharge him like they did George Zimmerman, which guaranteed he wouldn’t get convicted. Unlike the Trayvon Martin killing, this one has video that shows to most reasonable people that the killing wasn’t justified.
He may have a gun, but he was NOT justified. If this case goes to trial, I hope they don’t overcharge him like they did George Zimmerman, which guaranteed he wouldn’t get convicted. Unlike the Trayvon Martin killing, this one has video that shows to most reasonable people that the killing wasn’t justified.
The sheriff reviewed it and disagrees with you. I'd say he's fairly responsible. Also, I posted this somewhere in this mess of a thread, but one prominent legislator who helped expend SYG, was glad he wasn't charged as well.
All we had was the hysterical "I have a tough azz husband who will beat you if you dare scream at me" housewives and no one else. Is natalie someone who passes for 'reasonable'?
If that father didn't shove him, he'd be alive too. If they never parked in that handicap spot or Ms Jacobs simply moved when confronted, he'd be alive as well.
Oh well, it's not like this is a big loss to humanity.
That’s horrible. Didn’t you see his little boy in the store with his daddy when he was dying? That’s tragic, and you say no loss to humanity?
He may have a gun, but he was NOT justified. If this case goes to trial, I hope they don’t overcharge him like they did George Zimmerman, which guaranteed he wouldn’t get convicted. Unlike the Trayvon Martin killing, this one has video that shows to most reasonable people that the killing wasn’t justified.
If it goes to trial, I'd love to make a bet with you on the outcome.
Don't pretend to be a macho man violently pushing down to the ground someone half your size. That man may have a gun. And be fully justified shooting you.
It wasn’t violently pushing. It was just a push which the little guy couldn’t take so it seemed violent to some. If someone pushed you to the ground would you call it a violent act where you need to shoot them. I would get up and push them right back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
