Florida 'stand your ground' shooter Michael Drejka charged with manslaughter

[Inisfallen]

Is he a bad Catholic? I don’t know. Is he a jerk? Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Afterthought – letting the air out of the tires would be counterproductive, wouldn’t you say? It’s then going to be quite a while before that car leaves that spot, denying access to an actual handicapped person for even longer.

 

[Inisfallen]

The man who initiated the violence is one hundred percent responsible making the man who shot feel threatened by initiating violence.

You don’t get to kill people because you “feel threatened,” because you don’t feel safe. If that were the case, the student body of Berkeley would be inflicting carnage upon our society to a degree never before seen.

One must actually be threatened with significant force to respond proportionately.

 

[Peebo]

Actually here in Florida you could be justified in shooting someone because you felt you were in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm…perhaps a woman who was confronted by a large male who was enraged and yelling at her and walking towards her waving his fist…why wouldn’t she feel in imminent great danger to herself…so there’s every possibility she would have just cause to shoot if she was carrying…it’s up to the prosecution here in Florida to prove otherwise…so obviously this guy here in Florida does have a case to answer for

 

[RandomAlias]

Does the killer still have the right to carry a gun? Just wondering.

 

[Theo520]

The first amendment does not give him the right to go up to a stranger and start yelling at that person in a threatening manner. I know you didn’t see that because the video had not yet begun. But you also don’t know for sure that he didn’t act that way, which McGlockton clearly though was the case.

No, I think it does give him the right. Why would you imagine otherwise?
At what decibel level does one lose their right to free speech?

And, obviously, he should never be allowed to possess a firearm again.

All depends on his trial outcome. If he’s found guilty of manslaughter, I agree with you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The first amendment does not give him the right to go up to a stranger and start yelling at that person in a threatening manner. I know you didn’t see that because the video had not yet begun. But you also don’t know for sure that he didn’t act that way, which McGlockton clearly though was the case.

No, I think it does give him the right. Why would you imagine otherwise?

I guarantee you that if I went right now to the main street of my town and began verbally accosting everyone walking by with accusations on what terrible people they were, putting my yelling face within inches of theirs, that within 15 minutes I would be in police custody (or a mental hospital).

 

[Theo520]

I guarantee you that if I went right now to the main street of my town and began verbally accosting everyone walking by with accusations on what terrible people they were, putting my yelling face within inches of theirs, that within 15 minutes I would be in police custody (or a mental hospital).

love how you change the goal posts to verbally accosting everyone.

Get back on target, explain how the law does not allow you to talk to or even yell a bit at someone? He’d only been doing it for a few seconds, so no stalking involved.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Or if verbal arguments continued and the shooter did not have a gun and was already vulnerable on the ground, the violence could have escalated. The man who had the upper hand because he was still standing and was twice the size as the man on the ground could have walked over and done further harm to him. We Don’t know for a fact what would have happened. Would the deceased man have apologized and offered to help the man up?

 

[dvdjs]

Get back on target, explain how the law does not allow you to talk to or even yell a bit at someone?

It depends on what a person says. Fighting words are not protected by the first amendment. Words that would make a reasonable person fear that they were in danger of bodily harm are not protected.

 

[7_Sorrows]

First off, I never park in a handicap space even if I tell myself I will be in and out.
Usually, there are a limited amount of handicap spots at convenience stores.

Secondly, I lived in Phoenix for 30 years, so if my car was already running I would move to a non-handicap space away from this man. I would roll up my window and not engage him in conversation if I thought he was unstable.
If she was yelling back at him and arguing she was just encouraging him to rant. He
did not look menacing or threatening. He was not approaching her car. He kept his distance. She didn’t’t appear to do anything to protect herself or her two kids in the car. She might have made things worse by exiting her car before the man pulled the gun.

 

[Inisfallen]

Or if verbal arguments continued and the shooter did not have a gun and was already vulnerable on the ground, the violence could have escalated. The man who had the upper hand because he was still standing and was twice the size as the man on the ground could have walked over and done further harm to him. We Don’t know for a fact what would have happened. Would the deceased man have apologized and offered to help the man up?

He might have apologized and offered to help him up. As you point out, we don’t know what he might have done.

What we do know is that the video shows that he was retreating.

Are we now okay with shooting and killing people because of what they might do?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I guarantee you that if I went right now to the main street of my town and began verbally accosting everyone walking by with accusations on what terrible people they were, putting my yelling face within inches of theirs, that within 15 minutes I would be in police custody (or a mental hospital).

love how you change the goal posts to verbally accosting everyone.

Get back on target, explain how the law does not allow you to talk to or even yell a bit at someone? He’d only been doing it for a few seconds, so no stalking involved.

You are also trying to change the goal posts to yell “a bit”, when the testimony from the vctim’s girlfriend contained no such minimizing language.

 

[Theo520]

You are also trying to change the goal posts to yell “a bit”, when the testimony from the vctim’s girlfriend contained no such minimizing language.

HARDLY, there wasn’t time for him to do more than yell a bit.

 

[niceatheist]

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; "
Matthew 5:38-39

 

[Inisfallen]

Yeah, that’s all well and good, but kind of PC, don’t you think?

It’s not WINNING, though.

 

[exnihilo]

You don’t know this man was a Christian. We have to respect everyone’s religious beliefs, right? So maybe he was a Nordic pagan and thought every insult should be repaid with death.

 

[niceatheist]

The man has his justification for shooting a man who was twelve feet away. I’m more interested in some Catholic’s defenses of the action.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Maybe I am jaded as I experienced domestic violence in my 20’s during my
brief marriage. I would not turn the other cheek and if I had a weapon and my life was threatened, I would probably use it to save my life.

 

[exnihilo]

Why would that matter? We can’t impose our morality on others. That would atrocious, right?

 

[Inisfallen]

I would not turn the other cheek and if I had a weapon and my life was threatened, I would probably use it to save my life

Yes, of course, but the key word there is “if.”

It does not appear that Mr. Drejka’s life was being threatened when he chose to shoot and kill a man.