Then you would have ended up just like him. Words don't mean sh**.
Really? This Qualifies For "Stand Your Ground"
- Thread starter Booky
- Start date
I think you should be able to call someone out when they’re doing wrong and not be physically attacked. If you’re waiting in line and someone cuts in front of you are you just supposed to say nothing? The shooter didn’t see the guy and gets violently pushed down. It was about one second that the pusher backed up from when the gun was out. I wouldn’t have been able to find this guy guilty and face a possibility of 30 years over a one second decision after he was violently pushed down. I don’t know how I would’ve reacted if I was talking to someone one moment and on my backside the next with an angry guy clinching his fists taking steps towards me. It took me several times of watching the video to come to a conclusion, I couldn’t imagine being knocked down and having one second to make a decision. Everyone in the situation could have walked away at some point, but the pusher upped the ante.
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
I think the decision was the right one it was man slaughter and there was no danger when he was shot.
In saying this parking in the disabled spot, all the time according to reports and not being disabled or having disable certification, is a bitch thing to do. This entire situation should never have happened.
In saying this parking in the disabled spot, all the time according to reports and not being disabled or having disable certification, is a bitch thing to do. This entire situation should never have happened.
I can see it your way too.
When the shooter got that adrenaline dump all the subtlety of the pusher's movements went away or were unobserved. And the shooter was only speaking, not being physical.
This is why the defense should have had or been allowed an expert witness. I am not sure whether they did have one or not. (I had to go without one as well)
There will be an appeal.
Michael Drejka is feeling that constant state of fear from the moments before the shooting all the way to now and beyond, and I feel for him.
I just dont think he was in a place he had a right to be from the git-go. And a jury has the right to believe any testimony or not, expert or not, all or in part. A jury can decide that the charges are unreasonable and excessive. This is why juries need to be fully informed of their power to nullify, but Jury nullification is a double edged sword as well.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 977
Have any of you ever had the experience of starting to close your car door, notice the keys lying in the seat, but not being able to abort the door closing subroutine in time to keep from locking your keys in the car?
Yup. And everyone lived.
Ohio is the only state that puts the burden of proof on defendants to show they used force in self-defense.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If some douche is yelling at my wife I will sure as hell call it provoking.. The guy who was shot could have easily said he felt his family was threatened. regardless if you shoot a man who's backing up you are a coward
You can try and slice it how you want it... Not sure why you are arguing with me.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 977
I am pretty sure self defense is an affirmative defense in most, if not all states. SYG is a different, but related matter.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 977
Witty, but irrelevant.
Yes they are related, however SYG is only good for home or auto without duty to retreat in Ohio.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If they follow the rules and park in right place this does not happen.
If the man raises his voice and finds out what’s happening rather than assaulting, most likely nothing happens.
Having said these two things, the shot should NOT have been fired. He was turning and walking away. The guy was no longer a threat.
I agree with you, but one angle people might have not considered is that the older guy is not as trained as the average SVTP member (ex-military, ranger, SF, swat, etc.). After being blindsided by the forceful shove to the ground, all the old guy might have been focused on was getting the sights on and the shot out to eliminate the threat. He might have not noticed the guy starting to turn back.
Guy might have been in legitimate fear for his life (not a UFC Pro like the rest of us).
Simply just how I slice it.. I disagree with the officer based on that his opinion could go both ways but I dont think he considered that. The jury agree'd that it was a wrong shoot so imo, thats good.
I am also glad the victim was scum of society.
You disagree with the Sheriff how? For following the law? Cause I don’t believe he picked a side...
The Sheriff believed the shoot was good because he felt the man on the ground was still in danger.
I feel the man on the ground could have been in danger if the victim did not back away and turn. Since he did the shot should have been held.
If you look at the video, after the guy shoved the old guy, the guy was advancing still. It wasn’t until the old guy started reaching, that the dad decided to back off.
Old man was in danger.
It wasn’t about what the sheriff felt, it is about what the old man felt.
If you shove someone in Florida, you might end up dead. Might want to think about your wife and kids before parking in a handicap when your not handicapped.
Users who are viewing this thread
