Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
That's not what happened. The shooter shot the black thug because the thug got very physical with him and shoved him to the ground. The shooter feared for his life.
The FL stand-your-ground shooting. Why won't blacks obey parking laws?
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
That's not what happened. The shooter shot the black thug because the thug got very physical with him and shoved him to the ground. The shooter feared for his life.
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
Drejka has a short fuse???? What about the black thug who threw him to the ground.? THINK
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
Even if there was no stand-your-ground law he should still not be charged. This was clearly self-defense. Crazy blacks think they have a right to park wherever they please and if you complain, they attack you.
The ASSHOLE tried to enforce parking laws by harrassing a WOMAN...and got his but kicked...so he shot the guy who kicked his butt.
Having a gn makes one very brave
Cause we all know how dangerous "blacks" are
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
How does complaining equate to enforcing??
If the best the blacks could do is the version of the banjo they made, that's sad. Someone, and it was whites, had to make it what it is today.
You claim he got his butt kicked. Who ended up in the worst spot in the end?
Physically attacking someone that has a gun when you don't makes one very stupid.
Wouldn't enforcing mean he had the authority to cite her or make her move?
cawacko
Well-known member
Excellent National Review article on this. It hits the real meaning behind the Stand Your Ground Law and how gun owners and those who support CC should not support what this guy did. Essentially, if you're a man coming out of the store seeing someone yelling at your wife how might you react? Many would react like this guy did and that does mean you should lose your life. ""If a person shoves you, you can shove back. You don't have the right to kill him.""
This Shooting Should Sicken America’s Armed Citizens
In a world awash with disturbing videos and images, some stand out. Over the weekend, I saw a video that’s bothered me ever since. It’s grainy, and it’s not graphic, but it’s still sickening. It’s the short video of a man shooting another man in the chest. I’m not going to embed it in the article, but if you want to see it, you can watch it on this Good Morning America report.
In a nutshell, here’s what happened. A young woman, her boyfriend (Markeis McGlockton), and their young son pulled into a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store. While the car idled, McGlockton went inside to get snacks. While inside, a 47-year-old man named Michael Drejka (who reportedly has an odd history of initiating confrontations over parking spaces) approached the car and started an argument with McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs.
McGlockton walked outside, saw Drejka and Jacobs arguing and pushed Drejka to the ground. While McGlockton stood a few feet away, Drejka pulled a gun and shot McGlockton in the chest. McGlockton staggered away, into the convenience store, where he died in front of his son.
Incredibly, the Pinellas County sheriff, Bob Gualtieri, is refusing to charge Drejka, citing Florida’s stand-your-ground” law. At a news conference, Gualtieri said, “The law in the state of Florida today is that people have a right to stand their ground and have a right to defend themselves when they believe that they are in harm.” This is an inexcusably bad misstatement of the law. Drejka should be charged, and law-abiding Florida gun owners should demand accountability.
First, let’s deal with the applicable statute. The stand-your-ground law most assuredly does not grant citizens the right to use deadly force whenever they believe they are “in harm” (whatever that means). Here’s what Chapter 776 of the 2108 Florida statute, “Justifiable Use of Force,” says:
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Note that the statutes contemplates two very different circumstances, one where a person is authorized to use “force, except deadly force” and the other where “deadly force” is authorized. So, no, not every punch, kick, push, shove, or fear of “harm” grants a person the right to pull his gun and shoot. It just grants him the right to punch or push back. That’s it. It would be utterly absurd if every physical altercation immediately granted the victim a license to kill. That’s not the law.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/mcglockton-shooting-gun-owners-outraged/
This Shooting Should Sicken America’s Armed Citizens
In a world awash with disturbing videos and images, some stand out. Over the weekend, I saw a video that’s bothered me ever since. It’s grainy, and it’s not graphic, but it’s still sickening. It’s the short video of a man shooting another man in the chest. I’m not going to embed it in the article, but if you want to see it, you can watch it on this Good Morning America report.
In a nutshell, here’s what happened. A young woman, her boyfriend (Markeis McGlockton), and their young son pulled into a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store. While the car idled, McGlockton went inside to get snacks. While inside, a 47-year-old man named Michael Drejka (who reportedly has an odd history of initiating confrontations over parking spaces) approached the car and started an argument with McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs.
McGlockton walked outside, saw Drejka and Jacobs arguing and pushed Drejka to the ground. While McGlockton stood a few feet away, Drejka pulled a gun and shot McGlockton in the chest. McGlockton staggered away, into the convenience store, where he died in front of his son.
Incredibly, the Pinellas County sheriff, Bob Gualtieri, is refusing to charge Drejka, citing Florida’s stand-your-ground” law. At a news conference, Gualtieri said, “The law in the state of Florida today is that people have a right to stand their ground and have a right to defend themselves when they believe that they are in harm.” This is an inexcusably bad misstatement of the law. Drejka should be charged, and law-abiding Florida gun owners should demand accountability.
First, let’s deal with the applicable statute. The stand-your-ground law most assuredly does not grant citizens the right to use deadly force whenever they believe they are “in harm” (whatever that means). Here’s what Chapter 776 of the 2108 Florida statute, “Justifiable Use of Force,” says:
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Note that the statutes contemplates two very different circumstances, one where a person is authorized to use “force, except deadly force” and the other where “deadly force” is authorized. So, no, not every punch, kick, push, shove, or fear of “harm” grants a person the right to pull his gun and shoot. It just grants him the right to punch or push back. That’s it. It would be utterly absurd if every physical altercation immediately granted the victim a license to kill. That’s not the law.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/mcglockton-shooting-gun-owners-outraged/
This is great news -- especially when you consider that most blacks are very savage and scary -- much easier to shoot and plead your case....
Whites are more civilized and even if they are angry and let's say -- start yelling at people or physically assault someone, their inherent civility makes it hard for a black to justify shooting them
Blacks owned again #ZimmermanIsTheMan
Whites are more civilized and even if they are angry and let's say -- start yelling at people or physically assault someone, their inherent civility makes it hard for a black to justify shooting them
Blacks owned again #ZimmermanIsTheMan
Actually, in my State, the law says, and I quote, " person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime".
There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not he/she believes they are in danger. You can't do it for another person and neither can I.
Shooting them for parking illegally is OK?STINK
Old Trapper
Verified User
You can't kill a person who is not threatening your life, well, except in Florida. But, you have to be able to think before you can understand that concept.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Dirt McGirt
Verified User
Test that out, and you'll more than likely find out that a jury of your peers can make that determination as well, which is what this guy should be up against. Because while I don't fault him for drawing his gun on the guy when he was on the ground and the guy was walking towards him, he was not in imminent danger when the guy started backing up. And we won't even get into what started all the nonsense to begin with.
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
So you think blacks should be allowed to park in handicapped zones and no one can criticize them for it?
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
The black thug was NOT backing up. Please stop lying.
Text Drivers are Killers
Biden likes little girls
Able-bodied people who park in handicapped zones should be harrassed. Blacks really are like little kids. They think they can do as they please.