Posted on 07/31/2018 7:42:09 AM PDT by spacejunkie2001
There ain’t gonna be a trail if there aren’t even any charges.
FL already spent over $3 million to educate Low Information folk about FL’s self defense statute during the Zimmerman trial. Unfortunately, the Jerry Springer School of Law has many alumni. The absence of critical thought is epidemic. It goes hand and hand with its #1 symptom hysteria.
That was 2013. How's that worked out for him?
And then there is this — supporting your point:
In essence, the law does indeed provide civil immunity if the judge finds in limine that it applies.
You were right.
See post #23.
That law is likely to be changed. Soon probably.
It does indeed look as though collecting from the killer will not be possible. That only leaves the store for failure to protect its customers from a known threat.
I doubt it. But note how many times that article said "stand your ground". Every time it was wrong.
The greedy plaintiff lawyers have a powerful lobby which will always seeks new lands to pillage.
“That only leaves the store for failure to protect its customers from a known threat.”
Which requires the store clerk(s) knew Drejka was armed. They’d practically have to admit as much. Good luck with that.
Reason #41 for concealed carry.
It was IMO a "bad shoot", but not "murder". I'd take away the shooter's CHL over this.
2) There are apparently other camera angles that haven't been released that show different things according to the sheriff.
3) There has developed a mob justice mentality that the shooter has to be prosecuted, that isn't justice.
4) From the only angle I have seen it doesn't look justifiable, especially knowing that from media reports the shooter has a history of confronting people over handicapped parking space violations. It makes it appear he was trying to start a confrontation.
5) I'd like to believe that had I been pushed to the ground and the guy was advancing on me simply pulling my gun would've gotten him to back off and think again and I wouldn't have fired. But then again I doubt I would've pursued confronting them over a parking space violation.
Bottom line, I think even if the shooter doesn't get arrested he is going to face a legal battle from a civil suit and it will cost him whatever money he's got just to defend himself, over, in my opinion, a stupid decision to confront and then pull his weapon. When I'm armed I don't go off looking for fights, you can call me every name in the book and get in my face (don't attack though) and that gun stays put, my skin is as thick as it needs to be because that gun settles any argument permanently and I'm not looking for that.
I had a homeless guy approaching Mrs Dad when she was getting into the car and he was seeming to get aggressive and I was on the opposite side of the car. I put my hand on the handle of the gun and started around the car toward her side and repeated that we didn't have money to hand out. He turned and walked away and never saw my weapon because it was under my coat AND I was very glad.
Guns settle arguments in permanent ways and you should be certain of everything before pulling it IMO. So I think the shooter made a bad decision BUT, I wasn't there and didn't hear what was being said either. Maybe the victim was saying to him as he backed off, you better shoot me because if you don't I'm going to kick your a$$?
Sometimes there are no good guys. Sometimes, everybody involved is an asshole. And sometimes, a bunch of assholes engaged in assholery results in somebody (hopefully one of the assholes) getting killed.
And YES, I think the shooter is an asshole. So was the shootee, and so is his female companion.
...
That’s probably the most accurate summation I’ve yet seen.
according to the sheriff, yes.
I don’t know if you all remember a case where a Marine was standing in line at a fast food restaurant, some years back, in S. Florida. And some thug pulled a gun on the cashier and the Marine killed him. The family went after the Marine and were promptly stymied and couldn’t penetrate the immunity. He was fully protected and this was defense of another person.
there are no more cameras; just the one we’ve seen. The sheriff was explaining it this am, that there are only slow motion or frame by frame but just one camera.
agree about the mob justice and there seems to be a dismissal of what the thug did (and his past history) while focusing only on what drejka (supposedly) did by talking to the girl through the window, and his alleged past history.
It’s crazy that this is happening on FR of all places.
4. wrong. there’s no evidence that he ever did anything wrong then or in the past about parking spaces. Plus, this incident will only be judged on those few seconds (for both parties). Not history on either one of them. Which begs the question: why didn’t you bring up McGlockton’s history since he has an extremely long rap sheet? It’s almost like a 7 year age progression.
You’re also wrong about Drejka being sued; if he’s not charged (and convicted) he’s immune.
And as far as I know a civil suit can be brought against anyone for almost anything (but I don't pretend to be a lawyer). So not trying to pick a fight, just saying about what are the many sides of this mess from my viewpoint.
And as for #4, I'm just repeating what I heard on more than one media report. It is a local story for me living right next door (so to speak) and the media has been all over it and, IMO fanning the flames to keep it going. And the NAACP, senator Nelson, POS Christ and now Sharpton have all weighed in on it so - hence the mob justice concerns.
And maybe I wasn't clear on it because I'm working from home and was trying to listen to the presser but what I heard Gualtieri say was there were other camera angles and views not seen by the public.
Crump lost before and he’ll lose again. You’d think they’d have a honey hole of opportunity suing blacks that kill other blacks but that doesn’t seem to be any interest to them at all....weird.
If you watch the presser, Gaultieri explains immunity, etc. He also went into great detail about the camera angle not being sufficient to decide the case but that it’s the only camera there was. He was just pointing out that with the expertise of the police force, they have the tools to watch in slow motion with a very clear picture to discern more than the public.
But defending yourself can drive you into bankruptcy.
I thought Gualtieri did a good job on trying to calm the hysteria. He also said it is still an open investigation. If I was the shooter I'd be worried. This mob mentality is dangerous. Black on black, ignored, black on white, almost ignored, white on black, let's get out the microscope and look at everything the shooter ever did, wrote, tweeted or said and if we can't find anything let's go with what we think he thought.
So what you’re saying is that if he killed the thug with his bare hands — then the store would be liable.
Got it.
they can’t bring suit against you therefore there’s no need to defend yourself.
agree with your assessment.
According to who? Drejka? Or the woman in the car?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.