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.
The shooter rolled up very fast, manipulating his gun into his hand with the safety off - which is evidence that he wasn't harmed.
I wonder if he usually carries his gun with safety off.
We do know he has a prior history of flashing his gun in similar confrontations. This should be a mitigating factor in the shooting. I can let the shove slide since it knocked him to the ground. I just think this process that the scope in stand your ground needs to be reigned in.
An attack would have comprised more than a shove, it would have been followed immediately or simultaneously with much more than the shove. The shooter would have had a very difficult time to get to his gun, under a real attack. It takes free time to get revenge.
1) No, I mean right to defend. He shot once. The man died. It's not like he stood over him and emptied his gun into his skull.
2) I'm clear.
3) No, violently charging a man and shoving him on the ground is an attack by any definition.
1) No, I mean right to defend. He shot once. The man died. It's not like he stood over him and emptied his gun into his skull.
2) I'm clear.
3) No, violently charging a man and shoving him on the ground is an attack by any definition.
I don't suppose anybody has thought maybe he was simply hoping to stop him, not purposely kill him?
And don't start with where he hit him. It's not like he took the time to zero in on any but the largest part of his body.
I don't suppose anybody has thought maybe he was simply hoping to stop him, not purposely kill him?
And don't start with where he hit him. It's not like he took the time to zero in on any but the largest part of his body.
The dead guy had already stopped on his own - then he was double stopped.
He was standing far enough away from the shooter hoping to keep the shooter away.
What was the shooter defending against the guy moving away from him?
The dead guy was defending his family and his property.
What was the proper way for him to have communicated "Get away and stay away."
My wife shouts that kind of stuff at the deer that come in at night and eat her garden up. She knows that it is illegal to shoot a deer in the city limits. Her yellings at the deer don't work at all. My wife would probably shove the deer right out of the yard, except that she's afraid to do that.
Last edited by Hyperthetic; 08-01-2018 at 10:19 AM..
I would expect most people would do as I would have done (and have done).
Stepping between the car and the agitator: "What's going on here? Dude, step away from my car. Just back off. Now, what's your beef?"
Yes, that's exactly how I would have behaved here in England. Find out what the problem was, and why the guy is angry. If we're in the wrong, I would just say, "sorry pal...... we only stopped here for a few moments. I know we shouldn't be parked here." I would then climb in the car, and drive away.
I would never try and defend the indefensible. I know very well folks need those handicapped parking spots.
I did notice in the video, Mr Drejka was talking to Mr McGlockton's partner a few feet away from her car window. He wasn't in her face. Rightly or wrongly, if Mr McGlockton had approached the situation in a reasonable manner, he would be alive today.
I hasten to add here, I don't think what happened was right. I just think it was within the laws of Florida as it stands.
I would expect most people would do as I would have done (and have done).
Stepping between the car and the agitator: "What's going on here? Dude, step away from my car. Just back off. Now, what's your beef?"
That might have worked.
Sounds pretty good.
In the video, though, the shooter was aggressing the woman with his finger out - probably looked like an interruption was called for. Or, an intervenience?
Yes, that's exactly how I would have behaved here in England. Find out what the problem was, and why the guy is angry. If we're in the wrong, I would just say, "sorry pal...... we only stopped here for a few moments. I know we shouldn't be parked here." I would then climb in the car, and drive away.
I would never try and defend the indefensible. I know very well folks need those handicapped parking spots.
I did notice in the video, Mr Drejka was talking to Mr McGlockton's partner a few feet away from her car window. He wasn't in her face. Rightly or wrongly, if Mr McGlockton had approached the situation in a reasonable manner, he would be alive today.
I hasten to add here, I don't think what happened was right. I just think it was within the laws of Florida as it stands.
I don't think the dead guy should have killed the shooter to defend his family and his property - even though some are saying he should have, especially under the SYG law.
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.
We didn't have video with Zimmerman.
