• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gunman in 'stand your ground' Florida shooting charged: officials[W:44]

Tanngrisnir said:
Harshaw said:
Weird; you're the one who always claims you don't have to back up what you say, or make any argument at all, when you're disputing someone, because it's up to the other person to prove his own claim, not up to you to disprove it.

Yet what you're doing now is demanding that the OP's claim about the NRA, handguns, and Stand Your Ground laws be DISPROVEN.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not, but I understand your need to pitch it that I am.
Click to expand...

:roll: The low-hanging fruit of the most cursory of searches:

Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. When I'm responding to ahistorical bull**** not based in reality, there is no need to disprove anything. History and the actual record do that for me.

Pity that's a notion utterly lost on you.

Your support of treason and traitors duly noted
Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:
You are, and thanks for asking.

I have not made any such assertion in the positive. You have. It's not up to me to disprove the bull**** that you've spouted here.

Run, Forrest! RUN!
Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. It's not up to me to disprove your claim.

I live in reality, but you wouldn't like it here. You're already jumping at every shadow you see.
Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:
I don't have to. Someone else made the assertion in the positive.

It's not up to me to disprove their case, it's up to them to prove it.

That you don't know that screams volumes about you.
Click to expand...

^^^^
:doh



I have no idea if the NRA was behind this to sell more guns or not; it's not my claim. What I was addressing was the asinine outright dismissal of the assertion with no evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Yes, which when it's YOU, as illustrated above, it's enough.


The dismissal was 'stand your ground has nothing to do with hand gun sales as he argued.', but I see no credible evidence behind either statement .

No, it's not enough to just say it's wrong and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

According to you, as quoted above, it is.


You're not really one to whine about rhetorical consistency.
Click to expand...

:roll: OK.

You have a great day.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll: The low-hanging fruit of the most cursory of searches:









^^^^
:doh





Yes, which when it's YOU, as illustrated above, it's enough.




According to you, as quoted above, it is.




:roll: OK.

You have a great day.
Click to expand...

LOL! None of which counters what I posted, or is relevant in the context of this thread, but it's fun to watch you obsess with me and think you could somehow score some points.

It's amusing to think you possess the intellect necessary for that.

Don't you have some funerals to attend to hand out cards at?
 
cuban smokes said:
If the shooter would have been an off duty LEO instead of Michael Drejka, charges would have never been brought.

IMO Drejka feared for his life; I would have if I would have been in his shoes. Drejka was assaulted by Markeis McGlockton, and Drejka had no idea if McGlockton was going to kill him, walk away, or whatever.

Considering the facts of this one case alone Drejka could most likely beat the charges.

If reports of Drejka having other issues are correct, then Drejka could be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Just because your mouth writes a check that your body can't cash, doesn't always mean you are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm. I don't know the facts of this case, but I am well-versed in the rules of deadly force. If I shot every one who ever kicked my butt, I'd probably have been bunking with Charlie Manson.

I'd be interested to hear why this guy thought deadly force was necessary. I don't suppose anyone has linkys with more detail?

As for your comment about if this was an LEO...yes, that is sad, but true. It's a wacky world when we hold Joe Public to a higher standard than the alleged trained professionals.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Oh, I know. I'm just saying it's not always omitted through intent, but because the reporter simply doesn't know any better.

I'm not excusing it by any means. In fact, I'm not totally sure if intentional omission or incompetence is worse.
Click to expand...

Most media bias is simply by omission. If it was worth mentioning the man shot was a father then it was surely worth mentioning that he had attacked the man that ended up shooting him.
 
Mach said:
Their right to life supersede your fear, sorry. If they break into your home, that's one thing.
Click to expand...
No your right to life does not supersede my life when someone is attempting to assault me.

If you verbally assault them and they push you in return? Hit them back or call the cops and get them arrested for assault.

Being judge, jury, and executioner, isn't cool. ****ing killing people because you get pushed, good lord. MAGA.
Click to expand...

Here is the strawman argument. No one mentioned anything about getting pushed did they? nope.
which proves you have no idea what stand your ground means no surprise there.

you assaulting me attempting to rob me or otherwise attacking me in a manner that I consider my life or the life of my family is in danger
sorry. You have no RIGHT to do that. I do have a right to defend myself without retreating.
 
Mach said:
Their right to life supersede your fear, sorry. If they break into your home, that's one thing.
Click to expand...

My right to life supercedes their perceived right to cause me harm, without repercussions. The Supreme Court says so.

If you verbally assault them and they push you in return? Hit them back or call the cops and get them arrested for assault.
Click to expand...

If they attack twice, they're going to get shot.

Being judge, jury, and executioner, isn't cool. ****ing killing people because you get pushed, good lord. MAGA.
Click to expand...

Attacking someone because you don't like the way he's talking to you! Good lord!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Most media bias is simply by omission.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

If it was worth mentioning the man shot was a father then it was surely worth mentioning that he had attacked the man that ended up shooting him.
Click to expand...

That's, of course, something which speaks more to intention than incompetence.
 
apdst said:
Attacking someone because you don't like the way he's talking to you! Good lord!
Click to expand...
Pushing someone. They get up, and go home.
Shooting someone ,they die with their kid watching.

Set that Christian example. An eye for an eye? Nah, how about a life for a push. MAGA.
 
Mach said:
Pushing someone. They get up, and go home.
Shooting someone ,they die with their kid watching.

Set that Christian example. An eye for an eye? Nah, how about a life for a push. MAGA.
Click to expand...

Don't attack someone, then. Simple, really.
 
ludin said:
as usual you are 100% wrong.

The prosecutor has reviewed the film and has determined that they think they have enough evidence to prove it wasn't stand your ground so they will charge with with manslaughter more than
likely.

Stand your ground is important. I should have no reason to back down from a criminal. They are violating my rights not the other way around.
I have a right to walk down the street unmolested. Someone else does not have a right to cause me bodily harm.

Laws that give power to the criminal over the citizen are not moral in anyway.
Click to expand...

Stand your ground has to do with real danger not imaginary danger because there is a difference between trying to save your life and this case. The man was pushed, not really nice of the younger man but there was no need to shoot because the black man made no efforts to further attack and if the man would have stood up and moved off nothing would have happened whatsoever with the man.
 
Jarhead1369 said:
Just because your mouth writes a check that your body can't cash, doesn't always mean you are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm. I don't know the facts of this case, but I am well-versed in the rules of deadly force. If I shot every one who ever kicked my butt, I'd probably have been bunking with Charlie Manson.

I'd be interested to hear why this guy thought deadly force was necessary. I don't suppose anyone has linkys with more detail?

As for your comment about if this was an LEO...yes, that is sad, but true. It's a wacky world when we hold Joe Public to a higher standard than the alleged trained professionals.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is true.

WHY do we have a double standard in America where a LEO can use deadly force & walk but the average citizen does the same & gets screwed?

Some thing has to change .........
 
Peter King said:
Stand your ground has to do with real danger not imaginary danger because there is a difference between trying to save your life and this case. The man was pushed, not really nice of the younger man but there was no need to shoot because the black man made no efforts to further attack and if the man would have stood up and moved off nothing would have happened whatsoever with the man.
Click to expand...

The law disagrees with you.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/disparity-of-force/
 
Peter King said:
Stand your ground has to do with real danger not imaginary danger because there is a difference between trying to save your life and this case. The man was pushed, not really nice of the younger man but there was no need to shoot because the black man made no efforts to further attack and if the man would have stood up and moved off nothing would have happened whatsoever with the man.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you watch the video, he walked aggressively toward the man on the ground, hitching up his pants as he did so. He paused, and started to back off, when he saw the man go for his gun.

I doubt there's any question that the old man was legitimately afraid for his life. The question is going to center on whether he needed to fire when the aggressor stopped and took a step back.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop sniping at each other instead of discussing the topic or thread bans are coming at best. Posts made before this in thread warning may still be subject to moderation.
 
dcsports said:
Actually, if you watch the video, he walked aggressively toward the man on the ground, hitching up his pants as he did so. He paused, and started to back off, when he saw the man go for his gun.

I doubt there's any question that the old man was legitimately afraid for his life. The question is going to center on whether he needed to fire when the aggressor stopped and took a step back.
Click to expand...

And at the moment he stopped, he was not any more of a threat to him. But he still shot him, something that was not OK in my point of view.
 
Peter King said:
Stand your ground has to do with real danger not imaginary danger because there is a difference between trying to save your life and this case. The man was pushed, not really nice of the younger man but there was no need to shoot because the black man made no efforts to further attack and if the man would have stood up and moved off nothing would have happened whatsoever with the man.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I posted.
 
ludin said:
Nothing you said has anything to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...

And your point would be? I was talking about standing your ground because you only talked about a criminal threatening you and going around unmolested.

Well, this guy would not have been "molested/pushed" if he had not been confronting the family of that guy. What if she had taken out a gun and shot him because she felt threatened? Sadly the law normally is on the side of the survivor, but I am curious as to how the jury will rule in this case because at the time he shot he was not in danger, holding that gun should have easily been enough to end the confrontation. At that time is he still committing a crime? Is he a criminal just because he pushed you?

The jury will have to decide this but all I see is a situation in which nobody should have gotten killed. This was a preventable tragedy in which now the shooter will at least have to face a jury.
 
ludin said:
as usual you are 100% wrong.

The prosecutor has reviewed the film and has determined that they think they have enough evidence to prove it wasn't stand your ground so they will charge with with manslaughter more than
likely.

Stand your ground is important. I should have no reason to back down from a criminal. They are violating my rights not the other way around.
I have a right to walk down the street unmolested. Someone else does not have a right to cause me bodily harm.

Laws that give power to the criminal over the citizen are not moral in anyway.
Click to expand...

Ill post the same thing here i posted in the other thread about it

GOOD!!!!
now with that said who knows how this will go down in court but with the video footage and testimony of witnesses etc etc not at least charging the dude was an ridiculous.
I DO understand however (in the case of possible stand your grounds) the notion of not wanting to charge somebody and keeping them locked up until there is a review of the case to determine if it warrants a trail. But announcing there will be no charges etc was the wrong thing to do, the chief should have just stated theres an on going investigation it will be pushed up the ladder and we will let you know.

This one HAD to have charges brought up and it will probably lead to the law being modified at least some, currently its too grey.
Heres the best videos ive seen, they last about 1:33 to show everything


https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...rgument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041

AGain this clearly needed to go to trail, i dont know how the jury will rule but theres no way to watch this video and think its open shut, no charges, no trail for anybody honest and objective IMO.
1:05 shove
1:08 gun is brandished guy takes 5-6 steps back and makes at least a quarter turn
1:11 shot fired

For me? if im on the jury and NOTHING new comes out, just the video and testimony we already have now, that guy gets charged with a crime and stand your ground doesn't apply. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom