Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 08-15-2018, 06:26 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoaltender View Post
If you were pushed down in public would you actually retaliate with shooting someone? Serious question.
Probably not, but everyone has their own realization of what life threatening is. Depending on what the guy said, and how bad I was injured and if he kept coming at me after the push I probably would.

You keep saying it was simply a push but you have no idea how the guy who got pushed perceived the assault so I can not really decide for someone else.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-15-2018, 07:40 PM
Ken07AOVette's Avatar
Ken07AOVette Ken07AOVette is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 24,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD848 View Post
His senses shut down when he walked up to the car and started the process knowing full well he was armed.
exactly right, all he was thinking was, 'all I have to do is draw faster than him'
__________________
Only dead fish go with the flow. The rest use their brains in life.


Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck
I wasn't thinking far enough ahead for an outcome, I was ranting. By definition, a rant doesn't imply much forethought.....
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:04 AM
Sporty Sporty is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just North of the 55th Parallel
Posts: 1,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
I'm sure none of this would have happened if buddy didn't parking in a handicap spot illegally. My wife wouldn't park in a handicap spot without tags and then start arguing with a handicap guy when asked to move the vehicle though....
It wasn't the shooter's job to play parking maid to the public and he's had a history of doing so. He initiated conflict when he decided to get into someone's face over a parking spot. At any rate, it's funny how minor offenses are deemed worthy of the death penalty these days.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:15 AM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporty View Post
It wasn't the shooter's job to play parking maid to the public and he's had a history of doing so. He initiated conflict when he decided to get into someone's face over a parking spot. At any rate, it's funny how minor offenses are deemed worthy of the death penalty these days.
What isn't funny is how someone can think they know how someone else feels after just being violently assaulted. They haven't a clue but seem to find enjoyment in ridiculing and dismissing their assault as just a trivial incident. Shame Shame.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:33 AM
fitzy fitzy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
What isn't funny is how someone can think they know how someone else feels after just being violently assaulted. They haven't a clue but seem to find enjoyment in ridiculing and dismissing their assault as just a trivial incident. Shame Shame.
You're dismissing entirely his history of looking for this exact conflict. He got what he was looking for. He's pulled his gun on numerous occasions for frivolous reasons. Are you really sure this is the hill you want to stand on.

I find it ironic you spout off about how he was fearing for his life but ignore the fact that he has a history of initiating conflicts like these where he mentions he will shoot. He wanted to pull his gun and shoot that man. He needed an excuse. You'll never convince a reasonable person otherwise.

There are plenty of cases out there where it could be argued that CC is a good idea. You've picked a bad one.
__________________
Take a kid fishing, kids that fish don't grow up to be A-holes.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:36 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporty View Post
It wasn't the shooter's job to play parking maid to the public and he's had a history of doing so. He initiated conflict when he decided to get into someone's face over a parking spot. At any rate, it's funny how minor offenses are deemed worthy of the death penalty these days.
I haven't gotten so much as a bruise or a scrape in my entire life from someone talking...... ever.

The guy could have walked out of the store, seen his wife was safe and sound inside the car, approached the shooter and asked what the hell the problem is and then told him to beat it and mind his own business then continue on with his day and both these guys would of had breakfast at home the next day.

I am not saying I agree with the shooting, never have. My point all along is that words are words and physical harm is physical harm. The dead guy is the one who skipped any verbal interaction and went directly to violence and in doing so had violence enacted upon himself. Does the level of violence matter? There is always a winner and a loser, or in this case two losers. Sure the guy never deserved to get shot, but in the same token the other guy never deserved to get shoved.

The guy who started the violence is responsible for the violence, it's pretty cut and dry. The only thing that went wrong for the dead guy was the level of violence used to respond to his action was more than anyone else had shown him in the past. It's not like he was a hero and died while saving someone's life. If the shooter had the gun out and was pointing it at the guys wife, that would have been a totally different story in which case I would have fully supported not only a shove but a bullet in the head, but that isn't the case.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-16-2018, 12:41 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

3 drivers say man charged in "stand your ground" shooting death threatened them

CLEARWATER, Fla. -- Officials, in court documents, have cited three other drivers who said Michael Drejka threatened them during confrontations that preceded his parking lot run-in with Markeis McGlockton -- a case that revived debate over Florida's "stand-your-ground" law. Two of them said he displayed a gun.

A black man who drives a septic truck told Pinellas Sheriff's Detective George Moffett that he parked in the same handicapped-accessible spot three months before McGlockton's July 19 videotaped shooting, the court documents show. The man said Drejka, 48, began yelling at him and said he would shoot him.

The driver said he left, but as he pulled away, Drejka shouted racial slurs. The man's boss told Detective Moffett that Drejka later called, telling him "that he was lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off."

In separate 2012 cases, drivers reported that Drejka waved a gun at them during road rage confrontations. In both cases, officers stopped Drejka and found a gun in his car, but he denied showing it to the other drivers.

On Tuesday, a Florida judge kept bond at $100,000 for Drejka, who was charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a 28-year-old McGlockton, a black man who shoved him outside a convenience store in a dispute over parking.

Judge Joseph Bulone in the Pinellas County court said that if Drejka posts bail, he must surrender all of his guns to the sheriff, wear an ankle monitor and not leave the county. He said he didn't have the money to hire a private attorney, which means a public defender will be appointed.

McGlockton's girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, was seated in the couple's car on July 19 with two of their children, ages 3 years and 4 months, when she said Drejka confronted her for being parked in a handicapped-accessible space. McGlockton had gone into the store with the couple's 5-year-old son, also named Markeis.

"I can tell my kids now that the police got the bad man," Jacobs said, following the brief bond hearing. She was one of several family members who attended. "I'm still answering their questions about when daddy is going to wake up. And all I can tell them is, daddy is resting right now."

Video of the July incident showed McGlockton leaving the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Seconds later, Drejka pulled a handgun and shot McGlockton as he backed away. McGlockton then ran back into the store clutching his chest. Witnesses said he collapsed in front of young Markeis, who was waiting inside. McGlockton later died at a nearby hospital.

"The charges are only one step in this journey to get justice for the unbelievable killing of Markeis McGlockton in front of his children," said Benjamin Crump, the family's attorney. "They understand when you look at the history of the state of Florida and stand your ground that this doesn't equal a conviction. All of America is watching Clearwater, Florida to see if there will be equal justice for Markeis McGlockton ... If the facts were in reverse, nobody would doubt what the outcome would be."

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri originally declined to charge Drejka, saying one day after the shooting that the man was protected by Florida's stand-your-ground law. The sheriff passed the case to prosecutors for a final decision.

The McGlockton family said Monday the manslaughter charge provides them "with a small measure of comfort in our time of profound mourning."

"While this decision cannot bring back our partner, our son, our father, we take solace in knowing our voices are being heard as we work for justice," the family said in a statement.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stand-y...inkId=55589238
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-17-2018, 06:46 AM
Sporty Sporty is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just North of the 55th Parallel
Posts: 1,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I haven't gotten so much as a bruise or a scrape in my entire life from someone talking...... ever.

The guy could have walked out of the store, seen his wife was safe and sound inside the car, approached the shooter and asked what the hell the problem is and then told him to beat it and mind his own business then continue on with his day and both these guys would of had breakfast at home the next day.

I am not saying I agree with the shooting, never have. My point all along is that words are words and physical harm is physical harm. The dead guy is the one who skipped any verbal interaction and went directly to violence and in doing so had violence enacted upon himself. Does the level of violence matter? There is always a winner and a loser, or in this case two losers. Sure the guy never deserved to get shot, but in the same token the other guy never deserved to get shoved.

The guy who started the violence is responsible for the violence, it's pretty cut and dry. The only thing that went wrong for the dead guy was the level of violence used to respond to his action was more than anyone else had shown him in the past. It's not like he was a hero and died while saving someone's life. If the shooter had the gun out and was pointing it at the guys wife, that would have been a totally different story in which case I would have fully supported not only a shove but a bullet in the head, but that isn't the case.

I don't dispute the violence started when McGlocton pushed him to the ground but the whole incident itself started because Drejka felt he was in the position to confront people over that parking spot. Since there is no audio, we have no idea what he was saying to McGlockton's girlfriend but you can see in the video, everyone else going in or out of the store were looking at him so it's safe to assume that the exchange was likely heated. Reading different accounts of Drejka's past behavior, I doubt he was calmly chastising her for parking in a handicap zone and most men are going to come to a woman's defense, especially if it's heated situation. Of course they shouldn't have parked there but for that minor infraction to lead to someone's death is unwarranted and uncalled for and the conflict began with Drejka.

Last edited by Sporty; 08-17-2018 at 06:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:52 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporty View Post
I don't dispute the violence started when McGlocton pushed him to the ground but the whole incident itself started because McGlocton felt he could park illegally.
Fixed it for you. Its not illegal/wrong/immoral/etc. to confront someone you see breaking the law. So the incident itself started when McGlocton parked illegally and he also initiated the violence. Saying Drejka initiated the incident is just flat out wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:12 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporty View Post
I don't dispute the violence started when McGlocton pushed him to the ground but the whole incident itself started because Drejka felt he was in the position to confront people over that parking spot. Since there is no audio, we have no idea what he was saying to McGlockton's girlfriend but you can see in the video, everyone else going in or out of the store were looking at him so it's safe to assume that the exchange was likely heated. Reading different accounts of Drejka's past behavior, I doubt he was calmly chastising her for parking in a handicap zone and most men are going to come to a woman's defense, especially if it's heated situation. Of course they shouldn't have parked there but for that minor infraction to lead to someone's death is unwarranted and uncalled for and the conflict began with Drejka.

The conflict started because she parked in a handicap-capped parking stall.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:17 AM
roughneckin roughneckin is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
Fixed it for you. Its not illegal/wrong/immoral/etc. to confront someone you see breaking the law. So the incident itself started when McGlocton parked illegally and he also initiated the violence. Saying Drejka initiated the incident is just flat out wrong.
Depending on what he said during the confrontation he may have broken the law actually too. Two wrongs still don’t make a right though.

This guy seemed to be looking for a fight he just needed the right scenario to make it feel ok. People mentioning you don’t know how he felt when he was pushed or if he felt like his life was in danger. Now he will get to explain that danger to 12 people that will take into consideration the video as evidence too just like anyone on the board. That video will be very damaging I believe for the shooter.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:28 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roughneckin View Post
Depending on what he said during the confrontation he may have broken the law actually too. Two wrongs still don’t make a right though.
Absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roughneckin View Post
This guy seemed to be looking for a fight he just needed the right scenario to make it feel ok. People mentioning you don’t know how he felt when he was pushed or if he felt like his life was in danger. Now he will get to explain that danger to 12 people that will take into consideration the video as evidence too just like anyone on the board. That video will be very damaging I believe for the shooter.
It's Florida, I think this guy was essentially arrested to appease the public. My opinion is it will blow over, it'll go to trial, the lawyer will ensure the jury knows McGlocton's police history, they'll see Drejka standing several feet from the car, hunched over in what appears to be a non-threatening manner, getting shoved. Given McGlocton's history, the assault, and given he can't defend himself, "He said he was going to get his gun out of he car to shoot me, he stepped back towards the car I thought to get it, fearing for my life, I fired".
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:30 AM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
Fixed it for you. Its not illegal/wrong/immoral/etc. to confront someone you see breaking the law. So the incident itself started when McGlocton parked illegally and he also initiated the violence. Saying Drejka initiated the incident is just flat out wrong.
McGlocton's wife came out the driver side door, so I assume she was driving. Any of you ever wait in the "fire lane" while the Missus goes in to grab a few groceries? If someone came up to you and started yelling at you to move and an argument ensued, would you immediately consider yourself at fault for the confrontation?

Let's say Drejka did the right thing and called the Police and they responded. I would expect the Officer's handling of the situation may have been very different...

Tap on the window, "Ma'am did you realize you were parked in a handicap stall? Could I please have you move to another stall and we will need to further discuss this parking violation."

Done!

Anyone ask or wonder what Drejka was doing at that location. Was he there to shop?, had he bought something at the store? or was he lying in wait for the next person without a handicap stick to pull into the stall.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:33 AM
CanadianEh's Avatar
CanadianEh CanadianEh is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 459
Default

Focus is on the wrong details here.. No need to argue about the minutiae..

No one deserves to be murdered because the shoved another person. And if you belive that they should be killed.. I feel sorry for you that you feel someone's life has zero value.

I am certain that you guys have never broken the law once ever. Never rolled through a stop sign, not paid for parking, never exceeded the speed limit by 1 kmh, etc.. , .. Because if you have, by your broken logic, YOU were the cause of a potential conflict that could have ended your life. Such a dumb argument that parking in a handicap stall was the cause.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:30 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianEh View Post
Focus is on the wrong details here.. No need to argue about the minutiae..

No one deserves to be murdered because the shoved another person. And if you belive that they should be killed.. I feel sorry for you that you feel someone's life has zero value.

I am certain that you guys have never broken the law once ever. Never rolled through a stop sign, not paid for parking, never exceeded the speed limit by 1 kmh, etc.. , .. Because if you have, by your broken logic, YOU were the cause of a potential conflict that could have ended your life. Such a dumb argument that parking in a handicap stall was the cause.

The assault is the crime which caused someone to lose their life, not the parking violation, so let's stay focused on that and that alone. This case is balancing on the stand your ground law, and if there was legal grounds for it. It's not about parking or yelling because neither of those are grounds to use the stand your ground law, unless the yelling consisted of death threats possibly. Drejka knew full well he could not use his weapon over a parking argument, but as soon as the assault occurred the rules all changed, it was the momement Drejka was waiting for, finally he could use the stand your ground law to shoot someone. He was just a little slow on the draw.

It's not worth losing a life over a shove, it's not worth shoving someone over an arguement, it's not worth starting an arguement over a parking stall, it's not worth parking in a handicap parking stall to save 5 steps if you're healthy. When we look at the events leading up to the shooting, it seems the fact that someone without a handicap tag parked in a handicap parking stall led up to a mans death. It was the perfect recipe. If it wasn't Drejka then most likely McGlockton could have gotten away with the assault, if it wasn't McGlockton then most likely Drejka could have gotten away with the lecture, but as fate would have it their paths crossed and the inevitable happened.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:33 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
...it was the momement Drejka was waiting for, finally he could use the stand your ground law to shoot someone. He was just a little slow on the draw.
Reminds me of Jack Reacher.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:37 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
Reminds me of Jack Reacher.
Never watched it. The whole Scientology thing prevents me from any interest in any Tom cruise films. I still haven't watch any of the Mission Impossible movies.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:47 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Never watched it. The whole Scientology thing prevents me from any interest in any Tom cruise films. I still haven't watch any of the Mission Impossible movies.
Bit of a spoiler alert for the backstory, sniper trains for years, gets deployed, and is never given the go ahead, gets told he his going to get shipped out without firing a shot on target, the day before, climbs up on a roof and shoots three guys coming out of a building (the terminology used is he needed to scratch the itch). Gets off because the guys he shot were coming from a gang rape.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:09 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
Bit of a spoiler alert for the backstory, sniper trains for years, gets deployed, and is never given the go ahead, gets told he his going to get shipped out without firing a shot on target, the day before, climbs up on a roof and shoots three guys coming out of a building (the terminology used is he needed to scratch the itch). Gets off because the guys he shot were coming from a gang rape.
Cool, thanks. That saves me from having to watch that one!
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 08-17-2018, 07:30 PM
R3illy R3illy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,006
Default

kurt your so deeply invested and set in your mind that you cant accept that others think differently then you.

Seems you have all the answers and anyone who thinks differently then you is wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 08-17-2018, 07:48 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
kurt your so deeply invested and set in your mind that you cant accept that others think differently then you.

Seems you have all the answers and anyone who thinks differently then you is wrong.
R3illy, you think everything I say wrong, and most likely even things I say that you agree with you'll say I'm wrong just to spite me.

There's two sides to every story, and it's pretty obvious I'm on the other side of the fence with you on everything.

I don't post on every thread, but the ones I post on I obviously have an opinion and I'm willing to change my view on things through discussion on the forum, this topic is one case in point. At first I thought the shooter was a handicapped person that was attacked. Then it came to light he is a nut job.

My take on this is that both guys were in the wrong, and if either one was swapped out with a level headed person nobody would have died there that day.

Now rather than insulting me, how about you tell me why I'm wrong in thinking this way, maybe you'll have something to bring to the conversation that'll change my perspective???

Last edited by Kurt505; 08-17-2018 at 07:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:43 PM
ESOXangler's Avatar
ESOXangler ESOXangler is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
The conflict started because she parked in a handicap-capped parking stall.
Still not equivalent to an death sentence.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:09 PM
R3illy R3illy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESOXangler View Post
Still not equivalent to an death sentence.
it seems its acceptable for a few people
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:20 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESOXangler View Post
Still not equivalent to an death sentence.
Nope, never said it was. I agree the crime doesn't fit the punishment, my point is the whole situation is a case of the crime not fitting the punishment and they're both to blame. The shooter is a nut job, there's no denying that, and I also think he's been waiting for the day he could use the Stand Your Ground excuse. BUT, I think McGlockton was out of line too. Unless Drejka was threatening Markies girlfriends life then slaming Drejka to the ground was not equivalent to responding to an arguement.

I figure after watching the video carefully the Drejka is going to be charged but there is a chance he'll get off because after the gun is drawn Markies is still advancing until he notices a gun being pointed at him. At that point he stops and it's just a second or two later he's shot. If Drejka was quicker on the draw I don't think he'd be charged, not because I think it's right but because of the stand your ground law. Had he shot Markies before Markies seen the gun I think he would be found innocent. The way the law works is if he feared for his life, and if Markies was still advancing towards him, Drejka would have been acting within the law.

Both were in the wrong but the only undeniable fact is that it was started from an illegal parking job as petty as it was.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:29 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
it seems its acceptable for a few people
Cheap shots but nothing to contribute to the conversation? C'mon you must have something other than insults to contribute. Why don't you explain why you feel it was acceptable to assault someone over a disagreement? It's guys like you I disagree with so please explain your reasoning.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:35 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzy View Post
You're dismissing entirely his history of looking for this exact conflict. He got what he was looking for. He's pulled his gun on numerous occasions for frivolous reasons. Are you really sure this is the hill you want to stand on.

I find it ironic you spout off about how he was fearing for his life but ignore the fact that he has a history of initiating conflicts like these where he mentions he will shoot. He wanted to pull his gun and shoot that man. He needed an excuse. You'll never convince a reasonable person otherwise.

There are plenty of cases out there where it could be argued that CC is a good idea. You've picked a bad one.
Without the CC could the man on the ground been beaten to death, crippled or very seriously injured...........quite possible as the aggressor was still coming at him. Your completely dismissing that scenario because it does not agree with your opinion. You appear to believe that a CC and the shooting of someone is never acceptable regardless of circumstance or background.

I am not really trying to convince you of anything except that the victim could have feared for his life.............lets see if a reasonable jury agrees with me.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:53 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
it seems its acceptable for a few people
Nothing to say? You figure it's all good that Markies assaulted the guy?

Here, watch this video. Like bobalong said, if Drejka didn't have a gun do you think your knight in shinning armor is innocent? Although thers no audio it certainly doesn't look like Drejka was acting like a raging lunatic who was a threat to the woman in the car.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Idbrk0c2KpU

Please by all means, don't be shy to contribute something useful.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:12 PM
fitzy fitzy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
Without the CC could the man on the ground been beaten to death, crippled or very seriously injured...........quite possible as the aggressor was still coming at him. Your completely dismissing that scenario because it does not agree with your opinion. You appear to believe that a CC and the shooting of someone is never acceptable regardless of circumstance or background.

I am not really trying to convince you of anything except that the victim could have feared for his life.............lets see if a reasonable jury agrees with me.
He could have been. He could also have been a reasonable person and had a completely different interaction.

Different point of view.
__________________
Take a kid fishing, kids that fish don't grow up to be A-holes.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:17 PM
JD848 JD848 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,844
Default

1000 to I if he was wasn't carry the gun,he would have never have stop or yapped off to no one.

He is a coward and a nut job and he got his wish that day.


The only different this time is that he meet up with someone who didn't run,everyone else split once he started to confront them.


READ IT WELL,NO ONE RAN AWAY THIS TIME OR TOOK OFF.

So he got his wish and with every wish comes a curse and when he goes to jail or stays on the street,his head is tagged and a shove will be nothing compared to what awaits him in this life and after.

He wasn't afraid of the guy in the septic truck and he wasn't afraid when he shot the guy who shoved him cause he new one day he would get his wish.

So a smart jury will add this all up,the shove will be the minor part in this case
His mental stability will be the main focus along with his past strange behavior towards others will be well looked at very very hard.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:47 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD848 View Post
1000 to I if he was wasn't carry the gun,he would have never have stop or yapped off to no one.

He is a coward and a nut job and he got his wish that day.


The only different this time is that he meet up with someone who didn't run,everyone else split once he started to confront them.


READ IT WELL,NO ONE RAN AWAY THIS TIME OR TOOK OFF.

So he got his wish and with every wish comes a curse and when he goes to jail or stays on the street,his head is tagged and a shove will be nothing compared to what awaits him in this life and after.

He wasn't afraid of the guy in the septic truck and he wasn't afraid when he shot the guy who shoved him cause he new one day he would get his wish.

So a smart jury will add this all up,the shove will be the minor part in this case
His mental stability will be the main focus along with his past strange behavior towards others will be well looked at very very hard.
Exactly. And if you watch the video you'll see that Markies stopped when he seen the gun, that's what will decide the case. But also you'll see in the video Markies comes out and slams the guy while he wasn't looking. He didn't just shove him away from his girlfriend, he charged at him and slammed him while he wasn't looking, obviously shocked the hell out of him. I'll bet McGlockton didn't know Drejka's history of losing it on people so it's not like he was acting on any preconceived notion of what was going on. He figured he was just suckering some whimp that was braking off to his girlfriend.

Now conversely, McGlockton went and suckered a guy, assaulted a whimp, only this time the whimp he assaulted was a nut job with a gun and shot him. All the other whimps he assaulted coward and ran but this one had a gun.


See, it took both of these guys to make this happen. If either one was level headed I gurantee 100% nobody would have died. It's not ok that Markies assaulted Drejka and it's not ok that Drejka shot Markies but it happened and they're both at fault and both paying a big price for being stupid.

The best quote was on page 1 of this thread, I forget from who but it was "play stupid games and win stupid prizes". Totally fitting.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.