Posted on 07/31/2018 7:42:09 AM PDT by spacejunkie2001
Even if this is a bad shoot, it’s no reason to change the law. The AG can still charge after reviewing evidence. The law just kept him from getting arrested on the spot and he doesn’t start with a presumption of guilt.
I really don’t think, particularly after this PC, that the DA will charge. The sheriff is making it clear that mcglockton was the attacker and drejka was in the right.
It was murder. The shooter had a history of harassing folks in that parking lot. My opinion, he was begging for someone to push back so he would be ALLOWED to shoot. He’s a sicko... The victims pushed him down after a third party states there was a guy harassing a woman outside. He pushes the guy down, but he doesn’t advance on him. He just stood there and then he was shot. Just my view on it guys. It wasn’t stand your ground...
you’re fixin to be proved wrong. the case is all about this seconds long incident, that’s it. no other speculated incidents on different days or anything else.
And YES, I think the shooter is an asshole. So was the shootee, and so is his female companion.
“He pushes the guy down, but he doesnt advance on him. He just stood there and then he was shot.”
Watch again. He DOES advance on him after the push UNTIL he sees the gun. Then he starts to back up and is shot. I think the shooter was still frightened. Seems unlikely that a jury would call it murder.
The killer’s past aggressive activity may not be allowed into evidence at his criminal trial, but it will be front and center of the civil lawsuit.
Particularly since the business will be a defendant in the action (no greedy plaintiff lawyer can resist going after a deep pocket)
if they don’t charge him or they exonerate him (Drejka), he is immune from prosecution or civil lawsuit.
Immune from a civil lawsuit because he isn’t charged?
Is there a particular decision or statute in his state that is based on?
Oh my, aggressive activity, Please enumerate. How does it stack up against the pushers police record.
stand your ground and self defense laws protect law abiding citizens from any legal attack. that’s why st. skittles family couldn’t sue GZ.
The trial judge will decide if the decedent’s rap sheet comes into evidence. I rather doubt it, but if so then the jury will weigh it.
Either way, it makes little difference as to the store’s liability.
I don’t recall stand your ground as being raised in the Zimmerman trial.
Yes, but I’m still interested in your “ aggressive activity” angle. I think it’s a generic term and likely hearsay to cast a nefarious shadow on the shooter.
Next we’ll be hearing the shooter *might have been* a member of the KKK.
Hmmm, so the felon who violently attacked him and threw him to the concrete was threatening his life for no apparent reason?
Florida has a self-defense immunity (not stand your ground) law.
Trayvon Martins family settles wrongful death lawsuit with Sanford, Florida, homeowners association
By David Knowles
| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
Apr 05, 2013 | 4:06
“While Trayvon’s parents have now agreed to drop their wrongful death claim against the homeowner’s association, Crump has made clear that he still plans to pursue a civil lawsuit against Zimmerman.”
"Stand your ground" is persistently used when it doesn't apply.
Self-defense immunity is not stand your ground.
"Stand your ground" doesn't have to be raised, it's part of the self-defense law covering whether a defender has a duty to retreat.
Neither this case nor the Zimmerman case were "stand your ground" cases, because neither involved an opportunity to retreat.
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.