Here's the thing that is terrifying to me. This guy openly admits that he was not in fear for his life. He openly admits that he knew the confrontation he started could get physical. But he's not worried because he's just going to turn around and kill anyone who lays a finger on him. The scary part isn't so much that he feels justified in doing this. Murderers feel justified all the time. What is truly freaky to me is that he clearly believed that the law was going to be on his side. He truly believed he had the legal right to end somebody's life because he got a scrape on the elbow and was worried he might get some more. That level of unthinking entitlement is astounding to me.

And he keeps himself separated from the reality of what he is risking and doing by using euphemisms. "Neutralizing the threat" sounds cooler than "murdering a father in front of his children," I guess.

And it's not just the fact that he killed the guy attacking him. When you bring a gun into the equation, someone who was not your intended target could get hit. You can kill bystanders. There were children there that could have gotten injured or killed.

If you're going to start shit with strangers, you need to accept the fact that you might get your ass kicked. A gun is not supposed to be an all access pass that allows you to provoke people when you're angry without suffering any consequences yourself. A gun is not a tool for winning arguments. A gun is not a tool for manipulating others into doing what you want.

What an absolute garbage human being. Why does this make me so much angrier that some of the other cases on here?

@Dinos you really are soft, if that looks like a vicious attack. Damn. What's wrong with people?

@Dinos you really are soft, if that looks like a vicious attack. Damn. What's wrong with people?

@Anthony Dunkley the other guy pushed him first, because he was getting aggressive with the man's girlfriend. The victim didn't just walk up and push him. He did what other men are supposed to do when a fellow man gets aggressive with the woman he loves. Point is, he had no business shouting at that woman over a parking violation. Period.

@Anthony Dunkley the other guy pushed him first, because he was getting aggressive with the man's girlfriend. The victim didn't just walk up and push him. He did what other men are supposed to do when a fellow man gets aggressive with the woman he loves. Point is, he had no business shouting at that woman over a parking violation. Period.

@Johnny Natrium I didn't mean to argue either way in terms of provocation, only on the basis that provocation, both physical and not, is a legal concept.

You can really argue provocation either way, like what you said. But to say that Person A was provoked by Person B after Person B was provoked by Person A might not logically follow.

@Johnny Natrium I didn't mean to argue either way in terms of provocation, only on the basis that provocation, both physical and not, is a legal concept.

You can really argue provocation either way, like what you said. But to say that Person A was provoked by Person B after Person B was provoked by Person A might not logically follow.

@The Lone Wanderer The point you're arguing about provocation actually works much better when you use it for the case of the shooter. Being blindsided and thrown to the curb by a large stranger is much more provocative in terms making someone act rashly in 'self defense' than seeing someone argue from a safe distance verbally with no matter whom, and he took much more time quietly walking over to him before throwing him off his feet. So neither of us are really arguing that either defense should be accepted, but it strikes me that you use the 'provocation' argument only in favor of the aggressive dad and not the killer.

@The Lone Wanderer The point you're arguing about provocation actually works much better when you use it for the case of the shooter. Being blindsided and thrown to the curb by a large stranger is much more provocative in terms making someone act rashly in 'self defense' than seeing someone argue from a safe distance verbally with no matter whom, and he took much more time quietly walking over to him before throwing him off his feet. So neither of us are really arguing that either defense should be accepted, but it strikes me that you use the 'provocation' argument only in favor of the aggressive dad and not the killer.

@jeremy pool This is only reasonable when the consequences are reasonable. And being assaulted for talking to someone, is not reasonable. That's normalizing violent behaviour.

@jeremy pool This is only reasonable when the consequences are reasonable. And being assaulted for talking to someone, is not reasonable. That's normalizing violent behaviour.

@Johnny Natrium don't start shit if you can't handle the consequences whether you are in the right or wrong

@Johnny Natrium don't start shit if you can't handle the consequences whether you are in the right or wrong

I agree generally speaking, but I completely think your values are twisted if you believe it to be reasonable that, if you approach anyone and verbally have an exchange about something they're doing that's against the law, you should  "accept the fact you might get your ass kicked". That is some BS right there, that goes against every facet of the concept of freedom. What the victim in this case did was completely and utterly despicable. It is absolutely NOT acceptable for someone to silently approach an unsuspecting person who's having a verbal, sufficiently distant exchange with anyone including the family, to come out of nowhere and blindside knock him to the curb, and you know he was still approaching him UNTIL he saw the gun coming out, just look at the footage. There's no telling what he was going to do if he didn't see the gun, but it is clear that he was displaying physical superiority over the killer and up to that point was using brute force to injure and dominate a weaker person 'to solve an argument' just like you posited the other person used his gun. <br>Is it more despicable to shoot the perpetrator after he backs off at the sight of the weapon and clearly retreats? YES. The killer was more despicable in his actions and the way he justifies them. That does not mean you should condone anything that the deadbeat sob did BEFORE he unfairly was robbed of his life. In fact what the poor dead guy did - I feel horrible for his kids - was highly criminal and should not have been expected, much less accepted by anyone who simply has a verbal argument with another person whether they were the one to confront the other first or not. It is very concerning when that has become the kind of values that America lives by, because it perpetuates the normalization of physical violence as a reasonable response; the very thing you're contradicting yourself with by condemning it later.

I agree generally speaking, but I completely think your values are twisted if you believe it to be reasonable that, if you approach anyone and verbally have an exchange about something they're doing that's against the law, you should  "accept the fact you might get your ass kicked". That is some BS right there, that goes against every facet of the concept of freedom. What the victim in this case did was completely and utterly despicable. It is absolutely NOT acceptable for someone to silently approach an unsuspecting person who's having a verbal, sufficiently distant exchange with anyone including the family, to come out of nowhere and blindside knock him to the curb, and you know he was still approaching him UNTIL he saw the gun coming out, just look at the footage. There's no telling what he was going to do if he didn't see the gun, but it is clear that he was displaying physical superiority over the killer and up to that point was using brute force to injure and dominate a weaker person 'to solve an argument' just like you posited the other person used his gun.
Is it more despicable to shoot the perpetrator after he backs off at the sight of the weapon and clearly retreats? YES. The killer was more despicable in his actions and the way he justifies them. That does not mean you should condone anything that the deadbeat sob did BEFORE he unfairly was robbed of his life. In fact what the poor dead guy did - I feel horrible for his kids - was highly criminal and should not have been expected, much less accepted by anyone who simply has a verbal argument with another person whether they were the one to confront the other first or not. It is very concerning when that has become the kind of values that America lives by, because it perpetuates the normalization of physical violence as a reasonable response; the very thing you're contradicting yourself with by condemning it later.

@Briala B

I have to disagree.

If you start a VERBAL altercation / argument - you NEVER SHOULD have to expect "to get your ass kicked" - so PHYSICALLY attacked. THAT thinking shows how wrong your perception of human interaction is. NEVER should ONLY words be the reason for a physical attack.

In contrast to that - if you START a brawl, YOU should epxect that this can escalate up o the use of leathal force.
Thats why the black guy would have been charged if the gun would have not been pulled out. Assaulting someone is a crimal act. A verbal argument is not (expect insulting etc.)

The reason this guy went to jail is because the "attacker" is stepping back and there is a delay between pulling the gun and shooting.

@Briala B

I have to disagree.

If you start a VERBAL altercation / argument - you NEVER SHOULD have to expect "to get your ass kicked" - so PHYSICALLY attacked. THAT thinking shows how wrong your perception of human interaction is. NEVER should ONLY words be the reason for a physical attack.

In contrast to that - if you START a brawl, YOU should epxect that this can escalate up o the use of leathal force.
Thats why the black guy would have been charged if the gun would have not been pulled out. Assaulting someone is a crimal act. A verbal argument is not (expect insulting etc.)

The reason this guy went to jail is because the "attacker" is stepping back and there is a delay between pulling the gun and shooting.

@jeremy pool No, see once again you don't understand how this works. The things a witness would be testifying to are extraneous details that you are going to use to fit your narrative. You don't get to have the clerk come up and say, "Yes, McGlockton heard noise and was told something. So he went outside and thought there was a threat to his wife." That's not how it works.

@jeremy pool No, see once again you don't understand how this works. The things a witness would be testifying to are extraneous details that you are going to use to fit your narrative. You don't get to have the clerk come up and say, "Yes, McGlockton heard noise and was told something. So he went outside and thought there was a threat to his wife." That's not how it works.

@Robu it's really funny you say that when there are literally witnesses that could tell you his facial expressions and video evidence of his expression and how he was acting. So we don't actually have to guess what his state of mind was and we do in fact know what his state of mind was

@Robu it's really funny you say that when there are literally witnesses that could tell you his facial expressions and video evidence of his expression and how he was acting. So we don't actually have to guess what his state of mind was and we do in fact know what his state of mind was

@jeremy pool This is where you're wrong. You wouldn't be allowed to say what the state of mind of McGlockton was in court. There is no way to prove what He saw or perceived. That's why you said. "Pretty sure. Nobody knows. The way you would argue it in court would be through the testimony of witnesses surrounding the intial confrontation and possibly even your expert testimony and let the jury assume.

But please, go on and tell me more about how somebody would argue the state of mind of another in court.

@jeremy pool This is where you're wrong. You wouldn't be allowed to say what the state of mind of McGlockton was in court. There is no way to prove what He saw or perceived. That's why you said. "Pretty sure. Nobody knows. The way you would argue it in court would be through the testimony of witnesses surrounding the intial confrontation and possibly even your expert testimony and let the jury assume.

But please, go on and tell me more about how somebody would argue the state of mind of another in court.

@Robu it did, but ok. I'm pretty sure if you hear two people shouting and then the same two people when you walking at still having some sort of heated conversation, it's pretty easy to put two and two together. As a supposed lawyer, you would think that you would think of an actual rebuttal to that argument since it would actually be an argument used in court by either a witness or even the prosecutor

@Robu it did, but ok. I'm pretty sure if you hear two people shouting and then the same two people when you walking at still having some sort of heated conversation, it's pretty easy to put two and two together. As a supposed lawyer, you would think that you would think of an actual rebuttal to that argument since it would actually be an argument used in court by either a witness or even the prosecutor

@jeremy pool How do you know the man isn't an innocent bystander who stopped to help? When McGlockton walked out of that gas station he didn't know what was going on. His presumption of what was going on wasn't reality and it certainly didn't justify him pushing Drejka to the ground.

@jeremy pool How do you know the man isn't an innocent bystander who stopped to help? When McGlockton walked out of that gas station he didn't know what was going on. His presumption of what was going on wasn't reality and it certainly didn't justify him pushing Drejka to the ground.

@Anthony Dunkley ah yes, because pushing someone to the ground because they seem to be threatening someone you love is the same thing as aiming a shot and shooting that person because you are mad that you got consequences for something you started

@Anthony Dunkley ah yes, because pushing someone to the ground because they seem to be threatening someone you love is the same thing as aiming a shot and shooting that person because you are mad that you got consequences for something you started

@Robu how do you say that he had no knowledge of it when there were literally witnesses in the store that said they could hear shouting outside between a man and women. Then he walks out and see the man having some of conversation or alterncation with his girl, I'm pretty sure most people are smart enough to put two and two together

@Robu how do you say that he had no knowledge of it when there were literally witnesses in the store that said they could hear shouting outside between a man and women. Then he walks out and see the man having some of conversation or alterncation with his girl, I'm pretty sure most people are smart enough to put two and two together

@Anthony Dunkley Simple as this: You don't bring a gun to a fist fight... Even if the person initiated the first punch or shove in this case. It seems as though you're more focused on the fact that the other dude pushed the guy who was next to their girl's car instead of the fact that the actual instigator had walked up to the defendants car and proceeded to harass them over a parking spot he had no right to enforce. Either leave it to the police so they can handle the situation and/or get written up or charged for unlawful use of a firearm, or you ignore it and mind your own business like the one guy shown in the footage who darted to the right to avoid any such confrontation.

@Anthony Dunkley Simple as this: You don't bring a gun to a fist fight... Even if the person initiated the first punch or shove in this case. It seems as though you're more focused on the fact that the other dude pushed the guy who was next to their girl's car instead of the fact that the actual instigator had walked up to the defendants car and proceeded to harass them over a parking spot he had no right to enforce. Either leave it to the police so they can handle the situation and/or get written up or charged for unlawful use of a firearm, or you ignore it and mind your own business like the one guy shown in the footage who darted to the right to avoid any such confrontation.

Why do you say he was killed the guy attacking him?

He was the aggressor, he killed the guy protecting his family. He killed the guy that defended himself.

All while the guy was walking away

Why do you say he was killed the guy attacking him?

He was the aggressor, he killed the guy protecting his family. He killed the guy that defended himself.

All while the guy was walking away

he doesn't have to be in fear for his life, at all, only if he believes he is at risk of serious bodily harm.  He was at risk weather he understands it or not, and should have been found not guilty.

he doesn't have to be in fear for his life, at all, only if he believes he is at risk of serious bodily harm.  He was at risk weather he understands it or not, and should have been found not guilty.

Based on the order of events he started the conversation with the woman, the victim had no reason to push him and if he had not fired a shot he would be able to sue the victim. The fight was started by the victim and he is not blameless in this. However his response to being shoved was way more than equal force.

Based on the order of events he started the conversation with the woman, the victim had no reason to push him and if he had not fired a shot he would be able to sue the victim. The fight was started by the victim and he is not blameless in this. However his response to being shoved was way more than equal force.

@Christiaan Ingram Thank you. I read my first comment and realized that it came across aggressive and extreme. I don't want to promote violence. Have a great day and stay safe out there!

@Christiaan Ingram Thank you. I read my first comment and realized that it came across aggressive and extreme. I don't want to promote violence. Have a great day and stay safe out there!

@Michael Lamb I like what you said and appreciate the thoughtful response.

@Michael Lamb I like what you said and appreciate the thoughtful response.

@Christiaan Ingram There's a lot more nuance to my thought process than you're gonna get in a YouTube comment section and I hope that would be the case for everyone.

It's just simple to me in the aspect of keep your hands to yourself. Words are just that and while they might be offensive or even terrible they aren't justification to put hands on anyone. If things have gotten to the point of someone assaulting me there is a problem as I'm going to respond accordingly. I don't want to hurt anyone but if I have to I will so I don't get hurt and I can make it home to my family. I'm also not going to assault someone walking away.

I've seen and been thru some things that have made my attitude the way it is. I got into a fight in my mid 20s with someone who was high on something in my place of business. I went about things correctly until he swung on me at which point we fought and once he was on the ground I stopped and called the police. Literally as I was on the phone with the police the guy had found a pipe and hit me in the back of my head and after I dropped continued to hit me. I got hit in the head a couple more times but not as solid and he cracked two of my ribs. I have permanent hearing and vision loss (I already wore glasses so definitely didn't need that) to go along with the seizures that I still suffer from occasionally all thanks to that. This is why if I get into an altercation I won't stop until the other person is immobile. I have 3 kids and a wife that need me to make it home.

Also I own one gun and it's at my home 90% of the time. The only time it's on me is when I go out of town for business and I'm in unfamiliar areas. I don't feel the need to carry it around but at least here in Florida people expect you to be carrying so they at least think before they do stupid things. That's why I believe there should be stand your ground.

This case is not stand your ground. This guy is an asshole that was looking for problems. The guy who assaulted him was walking away. They guy had no right to do that but he shouldn't have died for it. Gone to jail a couple days yes but not die.

Breaking up a fight is a different thing altogether. If I'm doing that I know I'm doing it to try to create peace and I also expect to get pushed and possibly punched in that situation. That's a completely different scenario.

So with all that said yes I stand by what I said but there is much more nuance to it. I just want to live my life peacefully. There needs to be something in place to stop people like this guy that thinks you can just shoot over anything and also something to stop people like the guy that pushed him which was also not okay. Not on the same level of not okay obviously but still not okay. Everything about this situation was wrong especially with the guy who committed the murder.

@Michael Lamb Your response is exactly why "Stand Your Ground" is a bad idea.
You and I are the same when it comes to this: we're grown men not looking to pick fights with anyone.

We're also not going to let someone just come up and assault us.

We differ in the use of deadly force.

I was in a CVS a while back, when one of the customers started causing problems.  He was disruptive to the point where the rest of us asked him to leave.

Well another customer took the initiative to start pushing him out the door and they start fighting.
I went to try and break it up. The disruptive guy was younger, bigger and stronger than me. He pushed me off of him so forcefully my glasses flew off my face and I was on my ass.
I was fine. I got up, found my glasses and helped break up the fight. I bought my stuff and went home.
No one died. I'm not in prison. Dozens of lives aren't destroyed forever.
I guess you would have just started shooting and let the chips fall where they may....

@Looking 4 Things Well they do because that's how the law works and I don't care if you believe it or not. Why do you care so much I'm correcting people on the law?

@Looking 4 Things Well they do because that's how the law works and I don't care if you believe it or not. Why do you care so much I'm correcting people on the law?

@Little Loner "the ones that are emotionally and mentally stable"! 😂 then noone here not even cops should own  guns!! People eat antidepressants for breakfast!

@Little Loner "the ones that are emotionally and mentally stable"! 😂 then noone here not even cops should own  guns!! People eat antidepressants for breakfast!

to me is because the murderer is white and the victims were poc and he thought is actions would be justified for that reason alone.<br>There's another one where the murderer, again a middle aged white man, indiscriminately shoots at 3 young black men because they were playing loud music again in a store parking lot. That one makes me so mad too!

to me is because the murderer is white and the victims were poc and he thought is actions would be justified for that reason alone.
There's another one where the murderer, again a middle aged white man, indiscriminately shoots at 3 young black men because they were playing loud music again in a store parking lot. That one makes me so mad too!

@Robu You should know your legal claims just don't ring true. Why do you care so much that strangers on youtube people you will never meet believe you? Something to think about.

@Robu You should know your legal claims just don't ring true. Why do you care so much that strangers on youtube people you will never meet believe you? Something to think about.

@Christiaan Ingram All of them. You get it and you speak from your heart

@Christiaan Ingram All of them. You get it and you speak from your heart

@Looking 4 Things Once again, I'm sure you are intimately familiar with what an empty bag of potato chips is like,

@Looking 4 Things Once again, I'm sure you are intimately familiar with what an empty bag of potato chips is like,

@Looking 4 Things hello there. 🙂 I've enjoyed a number of your comments in this thread btw. Which comment of mine did you agree with?

@Looking 4 Things hello there. 🙂 I've enjoyed a number of your comments in this thread btw. Which comment of mine did you agree with?

@Looking 4 Things One, weird flex saying I wont make it in prison. I'm sure its a world you're very familiar with. I don't commit crimes though so we're good on that front.

Two, "left the firm" is actually code for I stopped doing criminal work and started my own smaller practice where I do various things relating to contracts. Once again, weird that you want to project your sad life onto me and make assumptions about my personal relationships with my coworkers.

@Looking 4 Things One, weird flex saying I wont make it in prison. I'm sure its a world you're very familiar with. I don't commit crimes though so we're good on that front.

Two, "left the firm" is actually code for I stopped doing criminal work and started my own smaller practice where I do various things relating to contracts. Once again, weird that you want to project your sad life onto me and make assumptions about my personal relationships with my coworkers.

@Christiaan Ingram Well said. I agree with you 100%

@Christiaan Ingram Well said. I agree with you 100%

@M. Diane Julie Benton Imagine Robu in prison. OMG, They would kill him to beat the arrogance out of him.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Imagine Robu in prison. OMG, They would kill him to beat the arrogance out of him.

Well said. I wish I could "like" your comment a million times.

Well said. I wish I could "like" your comment a million times.

@Looking 4 Things Maybe you should spend less time arguing with people on here and find a good man to defend your honor.

@Looking 4 Things Maybe you should spend less time arguing with people on here and find a good man to defend your honor.

@Looking 4 Things It's crazy. It's almost like I can do my job and take 30 seconds to send a message every few days. I do love your continued attempts to make it seem like this is some monumental task that takes hours to come write up a reply.

@Looking 4 Things It's crazy. It's almost like I can do my job and take 30 seconds to send a message every few days. I do love your continued attempts to make it seem like this is some monumental task that takes hours to come write up a reply.

@Looking 4 Things <br>let it go hon...its been awhile

@Looking 4 Things
let it go hon...its been awhile

@Looking 4 Things so because another guys girlfriend said her boyfriend was racist means this guy is also racist? Is that your "proof"?🤣

@Looking 4 Things so because another guys girlfriend said her boyfriend was racist means this guy is also racist? Is that your "proof"?🤣

@Looking 4 Things youre thinking of a different video on this channel but okay

@Looking 4 Things youre thinking of a different video on this channel but okay

@umungus  It was said by the GF's testimony during the trial.

@umungus  It was said by the GF's testimony during the trial.

@Looking 4 Things The irony of you saying I'm not a lawyer all because I'm talking about the legal defense of somebody you don't like isn't lost on me.

@Looking 4 Things The irony of you saying I'm not a lawyer all because I'm talking about the legal defense of somebody you don't like isn't lost on me.

@Bojang Bugami👈💪 Awesome! There is a gentleman right here.

@Bojang Bugami👈💪 Awesome! There is a gentleman right here.

Why are you lying about being a lawyer?  It's sad. You have a disconnect with people. It must suck to be like that.

Why are you lying about being a lawyer?  It's sad. You have a disconnect with people. It must suck to be like that.

@umungus Clearly we have different opinions on the matter. To me there is a difference being able to defend yourself and owning a gun. The Ukrainian people are arming themselves because they are under attack. Arming yourself just in case you ever are under attack is a different thing. People like you might be able to realize when, and when not to use the gun. The problem is that some people are going to misbehave. An example of that is this case, where an innocent life was taken. In an ideal world having the possibility for people to fully defend themselves whilst also making sure that no unnecessary damage is done is possible. But not in reality. Making sure that guns don’t get in the wrong peoples hands is hard and is clearly not working.

@Drdrjr no its not. See thats one of the reasons we have the second amendment. Its not different at all. Those Ukrainians would be much better off had they been allowed to own those weapons, learn how to properly use them, fire them at ranges. The fact that you think its a seperate issue shows how little you understand about the issue. When I say everyone should have the right to defend themselves I dont just mean in certain situations against certain people. I mean against any threat foreign or domestic. Imagine how much better those Ukrainians would be able to defend their homes if they had experience with those weapons. Imagine how much more quickly they would have been able to respond to the threat if they were allowed to own those weapons. Do you think putin would have thought twice about invading if he knew most Ukrainians had weapons to fight him and had experience using them? The answer is yes he would have. Good thing people like you made sure putin didn't have to worry about that. How is defending their lives, their loved ones and their homes any different to defending their lives, their loved ones and their homes? The only thing that differs in this scenario is its a foreign force invading and not a couple of criminals breaking into your house. Either you support the right to have a gun to defend yourself or you dont.  Gun safety should be taught in schools. Why do you not advocate for the banning of cars? Cars kill more people than guns do. Often because someone is driving recklessly but I dont see you calling for cars to be banned. Why is that?

@umungus Absolutely, but it is a complete different situation. The Russians are entering Ukrainian land and are killing civilians. It would be stupid not to arm the people. Guns in every day life however can turn a petty crime, a misunderstanding or an argument, into death. At the same time I agree with some of your points. It’s unfortunate that guns are the choice of solution in America. I live in Sweden where the system works much better in my opinion. There are better solutions than guns.

@umungus Absolutely, but it is a complete different situation. The Russians are entering Ukrainian land and are killing civilians. It would be stupid not to arm the people. Guns in every day life however can turn a petty crime, a misunderstanding or an argument, into death. At the same time I agree with some of your points. It’s unfortunate that guns are the choice of solution in America. I live in Sweden where the system works much better in my opinion. There are better solutions than guns.

@Drdrjr i would totally agree with you, unfortunately statistics here in the US completely prove you wrong. The amount of crimes stopped by legal gun owners far outweighs the crimes committed with guns. Gun safety should be taught in schools, the gun laws for each state should be drilled into kids heads. The problem is nobody wants to have an actual discussion about the issue here in the US. There are two sides, either ban all guns or dont ban any. Neither side is willing to budge. You also have to consider how the US was formed, why it was formed, and what the second amendment was created for. Not only was it created so that each person has the right to defend themselves but also to prevent governments from abusing the people. Whats the first thing every dictator does when they come to power? They immediately disarm the population. Let me ask you this, do you agree with the Ukrainian government arming citizens to fight Russia?

@umungus I think that the opportunity to defend yourself like that is a great thing. However I also believe guns cause way more harm than mercy. I could compare it to nuclear weapons. If one country produces nuclear weapons, other countries have to do it too, in order to put things in a stalemate. However it is far from likely that a stalemate like that will last forever. It would be much safer if no country had nuclear weapons in the same way that it would be safer to prevent people from getting their hands on guns.

@umungus I think that the opportunity to defend yourself like that is a great thing. However I also believe guns cause way more harm than mercy. I could compare it to nuclear weapons. If one country produces nuclear weapons, other countries have to do it too, in order to put things in a stalemate. However it is far from likely that a stalemate like that will last forever. It would be much safer if no country had nuclear weapons in the same way that it would be safer to prevent people from getting their hands on guns.

@Drdrjr hmm maybe we think its a good idea because two years ago I was able to prevent myself from being carjacked. Guy pulled a knife and told me to open the door. I pulled my pistol from the holster in my door and he turned and ran. I didn't have to shoot anybody. But I was able to protect myself and my children. Why do you want to take that ability away from me? Why do you think people should be at the mercy of criminals? Are you a criminal and just don't want to have to deal with innocent people defending themselves?

@Drdrjr hmm maybe we think its a good idea because two years ago I was able to prevent myself from being carjacked. Guy pulled a knife and told me to open the door. I pulled my pistol from the holster in my door and he turned and ran. I didn't have to shoot anybody. But I was able to protect myself and my children. Why do you want to take that ability away from me? Why do you think people should be at the mercy of criminals? Are you a criminal and just don't want to have to deal with innocent people defending themselves?

@Looking 4 Things you have no proof of that.

@Looking 4 Things you have no proof of that.

@William Blackfyre I mean id litterally be losing some of my rights due to being disabled so uh<br>Yeah doesn't instill much confidence

@William Blackfyre I mean id litterally be losing some of my rights due to being disabled so uh
Yeah doesn't instill much confidence

@HypnoToad Also, a lawyer here. You're going to have to be a bit more specific I have about 30 messages in this thread. What matters?

@HypnoToad Also, a lawyer here. You're going to have to be a bit more specific I have about 30 messages in this thread. What matters?

@Robu Lawyer here. You’re completely wrong. It matters.

@Robu Lawyer here. You’re completely wrong. It matters.

@Little Loner I'm sorry America makes you feel so insecure.

@Little Loner I'm sorry America makes you feel so insecure.

@Christiaan Ingram  lol guess you forgot that  George Zimmerman was a minority  a Hispanic; or that doesn’t fit you victim Mentality 🤦♂

@Christiaan Ingram  lol guess you forgot that  George Zimmerman was a minority  a Hispanic; or that doesn’t fit you victim Mentality 🤦♂

@Christiaan Ingram lol the victim was the shooter smh 🤦♂ the victim was “minding his own business “ smh  it’s sad when the victim was physically attacked  clear as day unprovoked . &. Not one of you blame the aggressor

@Christiaan Ingram lol the victim was the shooter smh 🤦♂ the victim was “minding his own business “ smh  it’s sad when the victim was physically attacked  clear as day unprovoked . &. Not one of you blame the aggressor

Lol you’re rambling;  it’s absolutely Hilarious thst you blame the  victim instead of blaming the aggressor; you then go on to to play the what if game; what if he shot an innocent bystander; if you knew what you were talking about you would see that no one is behind the aggressor when the shot was fired;  the children were also in the car 🤦♂ I’m assuming the  aggressor hefted the other child in the store; because the Narrator says the aggressor took a child in the store; you’re also slandering the victim he didn’t murder anyone  it’s as clear as day the shooter was attacked un provoked

Lol you’re rambling;  it’s absolutely Hilarious thst you blame the  victim instead of blaming the aggressor; you then go on to to play the what if game; what if he shot an innocent bystander; if you knew what you were talking about you would see that no one is behind the aggressor when the shot was fired;  the children were also in the car 🤦♂ I’m assuming the  aggressor hefted the other child in the store; because the Narrator says the aggressor took a child in the store; you’re also slandering the victim he didn’t murder anyone  it’s as clear as day the shooter was attacked un provoked

@David Ng Your protective instincts are lacking. If you're truly an honest person show this to your partner and ask if he or she feels safe with you. I happen to have 5 brothers and one sister and we were raised a very different way when it's a man against a woman.

@David Ng Your protective instincts are lacking. If you're truly an honest person show this to your partner and ask if he or she feels safe with you. I happen to have 5 brothers and one sister and we were raised a very different way when it's a man against a woman.

@Looking 4 Things if that is what you think is appropriate in a man then I hope your partner doesn’t end up like the victim here. He pushed an older, smaller man in the back with as much force as he could muster onto concrete. He didn’t deserve to be murdered but it was a cowardly and stupid thing to do imo. You can de-escalate or stand up for yourself or your family but it’s just common sense to leave room for the other person to retreat while retaining some pride.

@Looking 4 Things if that is what you think is appropriate in a man then I hope your partner doesn’t end up like the victim here. He pushed an older, smaller man in the back with as much force as he could muster onto concrete. He didn’t deserve to be murdered but it was a cowardly and stupid thing to do imo. You can de-escalate or stand up for yourself or your family but it’s just common sense to leave room for the other person to retreat while retaining some pride.

<b>This is everything that Active Self Protection TEACHES gun owners to be considerate of. Thank you</b>

*This is everything that Active Self Protection TEACHES gun owners to be considerate of. Thank you*

@Michael Lamb So killing someone is okay?

@Michael Lamb So killing someone is okay?

In all seriousness although the dude was 100 guilty, that didn’t stop the POS who without physical provocation to push him all ghetto like. An eye for an eye.. and before anyone pathetic gets ancy… his culture reflected his actions… I mean intimidate someone obviously taking smack but you condemning solely the dude who brought a piece out is kind of ironic given the fact the same can be said for anyone retaliating back with force…you yourself don’t know who’s armed….

In all seriousness although the dude was 100 guilty, that didn’t stop the POS who without physical provocation to push him all ghetto like. An eye for an eye.. and before anyone pathetic gets ancy… his culture reflected his actions… I mean intimidate someone obviously taking smack but you condemning solely the dude who brought a piece out is kind of ironic given the fact the same can be said for anyone retaliating back with force…you yourself don’t know who’s armed….

Beating someone’s ass (victimizing them) for being antagonistic is also highly illegal. Why do people start physical violence over arguments or being insulted? This guy committed crime of assault then the subject of the video committed the crime of retaliating with deadly force when he wasn’t in fear of his life. He should have used the gun as a tool to get the other guy to back down. You can point the gun and give commands to back off etc and you have a very strong self defense case. The perp should have given the Man opportunity to back off and wait for police. You can’t shoot until the attacker continues to move towards you in a violent/threatening manner after you have produced the firearm. This creates legal fear for your life because if the attacker manages to disarm you they can then kill you with your own gun.

I’m trying to say that both of the men in this altercation committed crimes. Both played stupid games and won stupid prizes. If someone is having a verbal altercation it is always best to attempt at de escalation before resorting to physical means. If you go for violence just know there may be a violent retaliation. And if you are an armed citizen it is IMPERATIVE that you learn the laws and understood rules around firearm ownership. It is a HEAVY responsibility. Do not take it lightly. And do not shoot someone that is backing away from you for fucks sake.

@Michael Lamb right, cause if someone makes physical contact with you in the slightest, you have every right to murder them. Sounds to me like you're itching for a opportunity, and given that you admitted you beat people until they didn't get up, I'm getting the feeling you're the exact kind of person you want to protect yourself against. A person who believes that they have the right to kill another person, nah. Inalienable right to life, you don't get to just take a life and get away with that shit (Nor should you) regardless of circumstances.

@Michael Lamb right, cause if someone makes physical contact with you in the slightest, you have every right to murder them. Sounds to me like you're itching for a opportunity, and given that you admitted you beat people until they didn't get up, I'm getting the feeling you're the exact kind of person you want to protect yourself against. A person who believes that they have the right to kill another person, nah. Inalienable right to life, you don't get to just take a life and get away with that shit (Nor should you) regardless of circumstances.

@Anthony Dunkley I don’t think he was justified for pushing him. He took the fight onto another level but, there was a fight that was already started at that point.

@Anthony Dunkley I don’t think he was justified for pushing him. He took the fight onto another level but, there was a fight that was already started at that point.

@Annabella LeForce might have been looking for a fight but he didn't start it in this instance. Other guy cheap shotted him, and that's when the violence started so at that point self defense was justified except in this case it wasn't self defense. <br>So a guy thinking he's a big shot doesn't justify someone putting their hands on him

@Annabella LeForce might have been looking for a fight but he didn't start it in this instance. Other guy cheap shotted him, and that's when the violence started so at that point self defense was justified except in this case it wasn't self defense.
So a guy thinking he's a big shot doesn't justify someone putting their hands on him

But a man speaking to your girlfriend in the wrong tone justifies aggravated assault? Justice isn't blind, but people sure are. Both the victim and the shooter in this are idiots.
Live by idiotic uneeded violence and die by it too. I dont think the shooting was justified but when you start a conversation with violence you don't get to cry when the person you attacked has the capacity to be more violent.
The same way OP claimed that the shooter should have accepted that him using words somebody else might not like could escalate to him getting physically hurt as consequence for starting a verbal confrontation. The shooting victim has to accept the consequence that for starting a physical confrontation without ever saying a word.

@Oritsu   A person in his position and seeing what he was seeing might not 'clearly know' an aggressor taking several steps back did not want or intend to  to 'do those  - or other  - things'  such as drawing  his own weapon and shooting.
But contraints to pulling the trigger dont require it to be CLEAR lthat the aggressor IS NO THREAT AT ALL.
UNLESS it is Clear the aggressor DOES present a deadly threat you don't pull that trigger. That's My  Understanding.  r
But this killer EXPLAINED HIS OWN THOUGHT PROCESS and justifications  AT THE TIME  and IN HIS OWN WORDS and as he stated them they fell short of rising to the level required for a finding of  justifiable homicide.

@Oritsu   A person in his position and seeing what he was seeing might not 'clearly know' an aggressor taking several steps back did not want or intend to  to 'do those  - or other  - things'  such as drawing  his own weapon and shooting.
But contraints to pulling the trigger dont require it to be CLEAR lthat the aggressor IS NO THREAT AT ALL.
UNLESS it is Clear the aggressor DOES present a deadly threat you don't pull that trigger. That's My  Understanding.  r
But this killer EXPLAINED HIS OWN THOUGHT PROCESS and justifications  AT THE TIME  and IN HIS OWN WORDS and as he stated them they fell short of rising to the level required for a finding of  justifiable homicide.

@D D L See, I like you. Obviously in a perfect world all three adults in this situation acted differently. I don't think Drejka is a good guy, but many people on here are conflating morality with the law. I didn't come her to champion Drejka. The entire point of my initial comments were about the misunderstanding of how provocation is applied.

@D D L See, I like you. Obviously in a perfect world all three adults in this situation acted differently. I don't think Drejka is a good guy, but many people on here are conflating morality with the law. I didn't come her to champion Drejka. The entire point of my initial comments were about the misunderstanding of how provocation is applied.

@Robu ah... i see what you mean.. about the chance of some mistaken-identity fluke..
He Wasn't wrong, but its a point.
I agree that  the men. And   MamaBear too were all rising to passionately champion PRINCIPLES  and put their sense of commitment to  Righting Wrong above that of  seeking to protect  physical  safetyat all costs.
And it couldbbe argued that  all 3 felt it was incumbent  upon them to step up to Bulkying and STOP thr bullying in its tracks.
 I agree with that arguably the  father the killer killed was CHAMPIONING his sweetheart and toddlers agaist bullying or degradation more than  protecting them from a volatile deadly threat -  and if hed known what a deadly threat it was he might have handled the confrontation much more cautiously   the hothead had been repeatedly a hairsbreath away from   a fatal shooting in numerous roadrage altercations he'd dominated with his gun they might have swallowed their Pride and apologized and  attempted to placate and appease him at  all costs,  even groveled , and given him his satisfaction.
You are right -
While if the family perceived the killer as an unstable deadly threat they were certainly RIGHT -
 they arguably didn't perceive the extreme danger they were in well enough until it was too late
As you said, the slain man rushed  over to  the man  who had been hollering at his sweethesrt and 2 tiny children and pushed him down before backing off.  Then he was shot to death  by the angry  man in front of the woman and small children he'd tried to stand up for.
Arguably, they didn't expect this.
Arguably. they presumed that confronting  this  bully  would be a self-affirming  lesson in the value of  standing up for yourself and your loved ones and  not a trap door to  a horrible sudden death
Of Course we are taught we use our words and not our hands. - or our force multipliers - to resolve non~deadly  disputes - by the time we are  schoolchildren weve been
 taught the wholesome lesson that solving a problem by rushing over and Pushing others is a NoNo.
Like you said --  Drawing the gun,  arguably reasonable -   it was  the killer's judgement in pulling that trigger that was horribly flawed

[.i know i sound like a douche as i try to muddle  through this -- 😆- I'm doing other things and keep getting pulled away and distracted so I'm just giving up and posting this trash just to  get back to  real  life   so sorry for all the flaws  🤓😆]

@D D L No, that's not all that was going on, but Markeis McGlockton wasn't privy to any thing that was going on. You cant say Drejka provoked Markeis when  Drejka didn't know he existed and Markeis didn't know anything about what was going on. For all he knew, Drejka was a third party checking on his wife after the argument.  Markeis heard there was an argument outside, walked out there, and then attacked a man who was next to his car. He had no reason to believe that Drejka was a danger to him or his family. It wasn't until Drejka pulled out his gun that Markeis back away from him. Until he started going for the gun, Markies was standing over Drejka. He is 100% justified in pulling iut the gun.

The argument was there to make that Drejka reasonably believed the attack wasn't over. Whether the jury would buy it or not is another story.

@Robu well you know that is not all that  was going on. 'A man standing next to a car' lol
C'MON 😂!  C'MON, GUY !

AND I AGREE with you !
IT WAS ABSOLUTELY
 UNREASONABLE to barrel over and push the rude guy down
The man who was out of the blue out there  hollering at your sweetheart and the  2 toddlers
Making a terrible commotion !
It was hotheaded and atrocious to race over and shove him !
It was rash !
A customer had just rushed in  to raise the  alarm that a woman was out there in an altercation he was concerned for her safety  he and the 5 year old could hear the hollering some guy going to TOWN on a Mom  and 2 tiny toddlers when you'd left them moments ago sitting peacefully in your car minding their own business safe snd sound while you and 5 year old big brother dash in to grab some snacks for the family on a beautiful day like a million times before  a family outing  a beautiful day and - what?
A msn is going crazy out there

He raced over and pushed the guy!
Bad move!
Because the guy WAS a volatile grenade  with a long string of road rage and other offenses  with a yen for going after people in cars and threatenig them with guns going after WOMEN in cars
 Certainly if he had groveled and apoeased and deescalated and validated the outragious  strange man's ego  apologized and smoothed the waters and made peace at all costs he might have escaped with  his life !

If he hadn't been the one this gu6 went after  who  taken  the bait and used his hands instead of an apoeasing he might not have been executed without mercy in front of his sweetheart and  3 precious kids for doing something we learn is a nono in preschool..
The killer shared that he  then whipped around to see if the woman needed to be shot too  and then decided nobody else needed to be shot and  coolly set his gun aside and waited for the law to arrive confident he had done everything just right while she wailed in her grief and the little children were yrapoed in the car and he was  annoyed by all this inexplicable noisy yelling about  "' the kids! The kids!"
NO HUMAN CONNECTION.
NONR.  JUST SATISFACTION. .
HE PICKED YET ANOTHER OF MANY FIGHTS  THAT HE USED HIS GUN TO  DOMINATE AND   HE WON THIS ONE WITH HIS GUN THE HARD WAY.
 This is a human story,  not solely a legal lesson.
This is a story with many lessons, moral, legal, survival...
If only both men had been more wirried about everyone's safety than Right and Wrong and not being or letting dear ones BE DISTESPECTED AND DEGRADES. if they had been more concerned with SAFETY than with  RIGHTING WRONGS  here maybe  a relatable hotheaded dispute over principles wouldnt have ended in unspeakable  tragedy.
If only either man - and the mama bear there -  had been quick to self- humble  in the face of the slap in the face of  shocking  unpleasant provocation   if only all 3 or even Any of the 3  had reacted to being challenged by rising above that feeling of having their buttons pushed by a Bully  by apoeasing the bully  Apologizing. Retreating. Making Peace at all costs if only their kneejerk  reaction to what was percieved as disrespect  was to be  instantly humble, salf-effacing  respectful and conciliatory
If they had put their Pride aside  the victim might be alive today and  well the killer would probably still be out there going after people since he was a volatile repeat offender - a powderkeg  ac- horror or incarceration just waiting to happen,  but maybe he'd still be at least outside and free to treasure his blessed  life with his own dear  ones and his two beautiful dogs.

I feel like he wouldnt have pulled the gun if the guy didnt get aggressively physical. In a way, the guy who pushed him hard was instigating it. If he got physical then the guy would wanna get back at him harder, which is shooting the gun. Theres no equal revenge at that point.

I feel like he wouldnt have pulled the gun if the guy didnt get aggressively physical. In a way, the guy who pushed him hard was instigating it. If he got physical then the guy would wanna get back at him harder, which is shooting the gun. Theres no equal revenge at that point.

@D D L What in the world are you on about? "This isn't a court room" We're talking about committing and being convicted of a crime. Do you understand how the legal system works? There's a court involved in that buddy. With lawyers who make arguments for and against you.

Also, yes, when you walk out of a store and all you see is a man next to your car, a reasonable person dosnt assume that man needs to be assaulted.

@D D L What in the world are you on about? "This isn't a court room" We're talking about committing and being convicted of a crime. Do you understand how the legal system works? There's a court involved in that buddy. With lawyers who make arguments for and against you.

Also, yes, when you walk out of a store and all you see is a man next to your car, a reasonable person dosnt assume that man needs to be assaulted.

@Robu Retain your services? Haha!

You’re not even winning arguments in this thread! The prisons in your state must be packed with your former clients. 😂

@Robu Retain your services? Haha!

You’re not even winning arguments in this thread! The prisons in your state must be packed with your former clients. 😂

@Anthony Dunkley if you push someone down who picked a fight  " its only fair"  to be SHOT ???

@Anthony Dunkley if you push someone down who picked a fight  " its only fair"  to be SHOT ???

@jordan p THAT'S ALOT.^

THE ONLY THING THE KILLER SAW WAS THAT IT WAS A BLACK MAN

@jordan p THAT'S ALOT.^

THE ONLY THING THE KILLER SAW WAS THAT IT WAS A BLACK MAN

@Robu he had ' no reason' to believe his sweetheart and tiny children were in danger or under threat ?

@Robu he had ' no reason' to believe his sweetheart and tiny children were in danger or under threat ?

@Robu this isn't a courtroom
The factors youre erasing carry obvious significance in the moral world.
This is real life.
The significance  of these factors is instantly  comprehensible  to reasonable people.

@Robu this isn't a courtroom
The factors youre erasing carry obvious significance in the moral world.
This is real life.
The significance  of these factors is instantly  comprehensible  to reasonable people.

@Robu obviously it matterrd he’s in prison . you clearly don’t have a permit probably an open carry fool . gun class 101 you can not provoke an altercation and then claim self defense! <br>you started a fight with a gun ..

@Robu obviously it matterrd he’s in prison . you clearly don’t have a permit probably an open carry fool . gun class 101 you can not provoke an altercation and then claim self defense!
you started a fight with a gun ..

@Christiaan Ingram Why you looking to retain me? I started out as a criminal defense attourney and after  years of that I left the firm I was at and stated primarily focusing on estate planning. Infinitely easy and pays better.

@Christiaan Ingram Why you looking to retain me? I started out as a criminal defense attourney and after  years of that I left the firm I was at and stated primarily focusing on estate planning. Infinitely easy and pays better.

@M. Diane Julie Benton That was such a well written, well REASONED response. You're an excellent writer...

@M. Diane Julie Benton That was such a well written, well REASONED response. You're an excellent writer...

@Augusta Septemberova you made an excellent point that a lot of people just overlook...pushing someone down isn't "fighting".

Think of it this way, if the victim had punched Drejka instead of pushing him that's an entirely different scenario.
Pushing someone is battery.
Punching someone is ASSAULT and battery.

I don't think that justifies a lethal response,  but at least he'd have more of a case.

@Augusta Septemberova you made an excellent point that a lot of people just overlook...pushing someone down isn't "fighting".

Think of it this way, if the victim had punched Drejka instead of pushing him that's an entirely different scenario.
Pushing someone is battery.
Punching someone is ASSAULT and battery.

I don't think that justifies a lethal response,  but at least he'd have more of a case.

@Robu Haha! YOU'RE an attorney! What area of law do you specialize in? It must have been trolling because you seem particularly gifted in that regard.<br>😄

@Robu Haha! YOU'RE an attorney! What area of law do you specialize in? It must have been trolling because you seem particularly gifted in that regard.
😄

@Bojang Bugami You clearly have no idea how the law works. The self defense claim was there for Drejkas lawyers to make. Courts aren't about feelings they are about facts. Once you get out off middle you can back and try again.

@Bojang Bugami You clearly have no idea how the law works. The self defense claim was there for Drejkas lawyers to make. Courts aren't about feelings they are about facts. Once you get out off middle you can back and try again.

@Bojang Bugami That's not how the law works omegabrain. A shove can aboslutley be a deadly force attack.

@Bojang Bugami That's not how the law works omegabrain. A shove can aboslutley be a deadly force attack.

@Robu it's all good smoothbrain agree to disagree I don't care he got 20 years. Should've been longer but hey at least it's something

@Robu it's all good smoothbrain agree to disagree I don't care he got 20 years. Should've been longer but hey at least it's something

@Robu no, you disgust me with how vehemently you support actual murderers, there was no equal force.<br>Defend all you want the guy chose to kill a man

@Robu no, you disgust me with how vehemently you support actual murderers, there was no equal force.
Defend all you want the guy chose to kill a man

@Robu if you're a lawyer I am seriously worried about the remainder of your victims, I mean clients

@Robu if you're a lawyer I am seriously worried about the remainder of your victims, I mean clients

@Robu he shouldn't have been convicted of manslaughter, he's a remorseless murderer

@Robu he shouldn't have been convicted of manslaughter, he's a remorseless murderer

@Christiaan Ingram want to watch your back all you want, any good lawyer will use that quote to pin any "self defense" as a predetermined murder, like this guy deserves. Yes he got pushed, that doesn't equal deadly weapon. Self defense in this case is a joke this guy is a heartless killer

@Christiaan Ingram want to watch your back all you want, any good lawyer will use that quote to pin any "self defense" as a predetermined murder, like this guy deserves. Yes he got pushed, that doesn't equal deadly weapon. Self defense in this case is a joke this guy is a heartless killer

Backseat he got off with less than 5 years for a remorseless killing that easily could've been avoided. You got pushed and escalated a shove to actual murder

Backseat he got off with less than 5 years for a remorseless killing that easily could've been avoided. You got pushed and escalated a shove to actual murder

lol I'm entitled to my life I would like to think

lol I'm entitled to my life I would like to think

absolutely.  you summed up all my  statements for me here.  thank you.  good day!

absolutely.  you summed up all my  statements for me here.  thank you.  good day!

@Pugachev's Kobra It really is amazing how you have all this insight about handgun carriers, totally confident in your false convictions.

@Pugachev's Kobra It really is amazing how you have all this insight about handgun carriers, totally confident in your false convictions.

You cannot use deadly force because you were pushed. You can’t use deadly force because someone threatened you. You can’t use deadly force just because you saw someone with a firearm. Even the states that don’t have a “duty to retreat” place restrictions on when you can use deadly force or not. You can only use proportional force; force equal to that of the initial aggressor. You can’t go around executing people because they punched you in most situations either. I guess some of the people in this very thread don’t know these things.

You cannot use deadly force because you were pushed. You can’t use deadly force because someone threatened you. You can’t use deadly force just because you saw someone with a firearm. Even the states that don’t have a “duty to retreat” place restrictions on when you can use deadly force or not. You can only use proportional force; force equal to that of the initial aggressor. You can’t go around executing people because they punched you in most situations either. I guess some of the people in this very thread don’t know these things.

Handguns are supposed to be the ultimate equalizer when it comes to combat situations but they really aren’t. They just push people to get into confrontations they otherwise would not have gotten into if they are unarmed. People will start arguments because they know they are armed; they are automatically willing to use it as well because they are armed. There has to be some kind of rules and regulations regarding guns and deadly force. It’s a good thing we had video evidence in this case but the fact that he felt entitled to use deadly force to equal being pushed speaks to how bad the situation really is.

Handguns are supposed to be the ultimate equalizer when it comes to combat situations but they really aren’t. They just push people to get into confrontations they otherwise would not have gotten into if they are unarmed. People will start arguments because they know they are armed; they are automatically willing to use it as well because they are armed. There has to be some kind of rules and regulations regarding guns and deadly force. It’s a good thing we had video evidence in this case but the fact that he felt entitled to use deadly force to equal being pushed speaks to how bad the situation really is.

Scrap on the arm, that push would have easily killed a human.  Regardless of what is what - They both got what they were looking for!

Scrap on the arm, that push would have easily killed a human.  Regardless of what is what - They both got what they were looking for!

@Anthony Dunkley   I do agree, you shouldn’t just take it when someone is attacking you. It didn’t seem that he would have been in the position of accepting being in a fight he didn’t consent to. This guy was looking for a fight.

@Anthony Dunkley   I do agree, you shouldn’t just take it when someone is attacking you. It didn’t seem that he would have been in the position of accepting being in a fight he didn’t consent to. This guy was looking for a fight.

Exceptionally said, OP!
I will just say, as a guy who carries legally daily, I actually am even more studious about avoiding confrontations because of that.
Deadly force is only legal (and moral) when either an innocent bystander or I am in danger of death or serious bodily injury, and the problem with confrontations is that they can all too easily escalate into something far worse than a shove to the pavement.
None of this would have happened if this guy hadn't decided to play junior parking enforcer, but once he made that mistake and angered the husband of the woman he was berating into shoving him to the pavement, he should have just cut his losses and apologized for his own boorish behavior and let things deescalate.

@bewing77 The genie is now waaay out of that bottle in America though.

@bewing77 The genie is now waaay out of that bottle in America though.

I truly believe he had the gun with intent to start a confrontation in hopes of it getting physical and killing someone with cries of self defense.

I truly believe he had the gun with intent to start a confrontation in hopes of it getting physical and killing someone with cries of self defense.

@M. Diane Julie Benton DJB, I'll start this message off nicely for you and we can find some common ground. I agree that Drejka deserves to in prison. You not agreeing with me on how provocation is applied as a legal concept dose not mean I think l he is a good guy or wasn't in the wrong. It isn't also isn't disrespectful to review the actions of Markeis McGlockton, because had he approach things differently he would be alive today. You have people in this comment section saying that his pushing Drejka is what a "real man" would do. Thats a dangerous social contruct that leads to incidents like this. Had Markeis' girlfriend ignored Drejka, drove away, said, " I'm sorry, I didn't see the sign" the shooting, most likely, dosnt happen. Her essentially threatening Drejka with "wait till my man gets here." Didn't help the situation.

Don't put your hands on people if you value your life.

Don't put your hands on people if you value your life.

@Robu  It certainly was not my intent to be disrespectful to Mr. McGlockton, my error.  At the same time, I am not choosing to ignore any simple concept because it is not simple but complex under varying circumstances which the legal system considered if you listen to the questions the police asked the defendant nuanced as they were, and the points the prosecutor raised in questioning and in his closing.
I am also sure you care about your wife and, if for some reason, she chose to wait in the car and someone came into your location to say a man was yelling at a woman, you would go check.  I too would not engage in a shouting match with anyone.  That is maturity.  Everyone responds differently to verbal attacks and what they may view as threatening behavior.
In the end, Drejka is where he belongs.  There is no need to belittle me and my intelligence or attack my character because we disagree and have different perspectives.  There is no need to misrepresent what I have claimed or not claimed.  Nor, is there any need to misrepresent Mr. McGlockton’s actions.  That is even more disrespectful than spelling his name with a C rather than a G.

@jordan p youre really trying to argue that fists and blunt objects kill more people than guns in the usa

@jordan p youre really trying to argue that fists and blunt objects kill more people than guns in the usa

Exactly if ur gonna be the type a person to get crazy over a handicap spot then u know this guy causes a fuss over small stupid shit and if he gets pushed it’s license to kill wtf hell no

Exactly if ur gonna be the type a person to get crazy over a handicap spot then u know this guy causes a fuss over small stupid shit and if he gets pushed it’s license to kill wtf hell no

@M. Diane Julie Benton DJB, I believe there are many people capable of understanding a simple concept. I believe you are too you are just choosing not to. You still don't even care enough to say the man's name right. Stop being disprectful to the dead.

Also, my wife would never get into a shouting match over a parking spot. Nor would I let her sit in a parking lot by herself, so I will never be in this situation. If I was, I wouldn't run out of the store and attack a guy.

@M. Diane Julie Benton DJB, I believe there are many people capable of understanding a simple concept. I believe you are too you are just choosing not to. You still don't even care enough to say the man's name right. Stop being disprectful to the dead.

Also, my wife would never get into a shouting match over a parking spot. Nor would I let her sit in a parking lot by herself, so I will never be in this situation. If I was, I wouldn't run out of the store and attack a guy.

@Robu gullible enough to believe your misrepresentation of McClockton’s actions and my actual words.  I do not know whether you earned a PD or why it matters.  You are not truthful and you engage in character attacks to make your points. Your hissy-fits about typos or misspelled words and the ellipsis and the Florida prosecutor’s discussion of provocation in this case. No one had said McClockton should have pushed Drejka but he did not do it on a whim.  But that is neither here or there.  McClockton was not on trial.  We do know that if you were in the store and your wife and children were in the car and someone came in said a man was yelling at a woman and her children, you would do nothing because what is the big deal.  You would not be provoked; you would be okay.  That is your right. Others would be.  The legal system in Florida recognized that others might be.  No one said it was legal, just that it was understandable.  It was not that McClockton was found innocent but the Drejka started this series of events and is responsible for the outcome, McClockton.  You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand.  You believe you are the only capable of understanding.  You are not. You even refer to “they”<br>I expect you will continue.

@Robu gullible enough to believe your misrepresentation of McClockton’s actions and my actual words.  I do not know whether you earned a PD or why it matters.  You are not truthful and you engage in character attacks to make your points. Your hissy-fits about typos or misspelled words and the ellipsis and the Florida prosecutor’s discussion of provocation in this case. No one had said McClockton should have pushed Drejka but he did not do it on a whim.  But that is neither here or there.  McClockton was not on trial.  We do know that if you were in the store and your wife and children were in the car and someone came in said a man was yelling at a woman and her children, you would do nothing because what is the big deal.  You would not be provoked; you would be okay.  That is your right. Others would be.  The legal system in Florida recognized that others might be.  No one said it was legal, just that it was understandable.  It was not that McClockton was found innocent but the Drejka started this series of events and is responsible for the outcome, McClockton.  You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand.  You believe you are the only capable of understanding.  You are not. You even refer to “they”
I expect you will continue.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Gullible enough to believe what DJB? I earned my PD. From where I'm sitting, you're the one who threw a "hissy fit" when they failed to understand the nuance of the conversation and prattled on about things they don't fully comprehend.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Gullible enough to believe what DJB? I earned my PD. From where I'm sitting, you're the one who threw a "hissy fit" when they failed to understand the nuance of the conversation and prattled on about things they don't fully comprehend.

@Robu Again, why anyone would want with a firm that hired you? I never claimed to be a lawyer.  I just pointed out some facts and observations that are part of the public record.  That seemed to trigger a hissy-fit on your part devolving into misrepresentations and attacks.  If your colleagues are gullible enough to believe you, I have to wonder about your firm.  Keep prattling about whatever you are allegedly doing.

@Robu Again, why anyone would want with a firm that hired you? I never claimed to be a lawyer.  I just pointed out some facts and observations that are part of the public record.  That seemed to trigger a hissy-fit on your part devolving into misrepresentations and attacks.  If your colleagues are gullible enough to believe you, I have to wonder about your firm.  Keep prattling about whatever you are allegedly doing.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Well DJB. That's simple. As attourneys, they enjoy working next to somebody who knows how the law works.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Well DJB. That's simple. As attourneys, they enjoy working next to somebody who knows how the law works.

Probably  the same reason many of Us Are angrier... This was an Unnecessary murder !!! NOT a good enough reason, no motive, just stupidity,maybe even racism on His part... I think pointing the gun was sufficient enough that stopped the fight... This is even scarier of a situation because it was just a random murder...

Probably  the same reason many of Us Are angrier... This was an Unnecessary murder !!! NOT a good enough reason, no motive, just stupidity,maybe even racism on His part... I think pointing the gun was sufficient enough that stopped the fight... This is even scarier of a situation because it was just a random murder...

@Robu did you share your comments as well? Did they give you a pat on the back with a good job Robu?  Misrepresenting yourself again?  You have a bad habit of not being truthful. Why would anyone want to work next to such a rude liar?

@Robu did you share your comments as well? Did they give you a pat on the back with a good job Robu?  Misrepresenting yourself again?  You have a bad habit of not being truthful. Why would anyone want to work next to such a rude liar?

I think it is fair to say that the shooter's actions leading up to the shooting are indefensible. Common sense dictates that angrily yelling at strangers in public is a bad idea.

I think it is fair to say that the shooter's actions leading up to the shooting are indefensible. Common sense dictates that angrily yelling at strangers in public is a bad idea.

@M. Diane Julie Benton They were very impressed with your legal takes. If you ever find yourself in the PNW you've got yourself a job.

@M. Diane Julie Benton They were very impressed with your legal takes. If you ever find yourself in the PNW you've got yourself a job.

@Robu   please share your concerns about my typo or misspelling and my habit of using the ellipsis.  Again, I will be amused while your colleagues read your comments to me…the unwarranted attacks and cursing (oops, another pesky ellipsis). Your misrepresentation of McClockton’s actions as well as my position should interest them.  Again, I doubt you will follow through.

@Robu   please share your concerns about my typo or misspelling and my habit of using the ellipsis.  Again, I will be amused while your colleagues read your comments to me…the unwarranted attacks and cursing (oops, another pesky ellipsis). Your misrepresentation of McClockton’s actions as well as my position should interest them.  Again, I doubt you will follow through.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Well no, typo would be how you just spelled more without the e. You called him the wrong name over and over again that's not a typo. If we're being honest though, the rampant misuse of ellipsis bothers me much more than you not knowing his name or your misunderstanding of provocation.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Well no, typo would be how you just spelled more without the e. You called him the wrong name over and over again that's not a typo. If we're being honest though, the rampant misuse of ellipsis bothers me much more than you not knowing his name or your misunderstanding of provocation.

@Robu if you are so petty to be distracted by a typo…go for it.  I will find it even more amusing.  It does not change your misrepresentation one iota, a far mor egregious act than a typo.

@Robu if you are so petty to be distracted by a typo…go for it.  I will find it even more amusing.  It does not change your misrepresentation one iota, a far mor egregious act than a typo.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Should I include all of the times you called Markeis McGlockton "McClockton" or would you rather I clean it up a bit to make it look like you aren't completely clueless?

@M. Diane Julie Benton Should I include all of the times you called Markeis McGlockton "McClockton" or would you rather I clean it up a bit to make it look like you aren't completely clueless?

@Robu Gee, Robu, you are misrepresenting what McClockton did and what I said about the high possibility that he would have been arrested.  Something I said more than once. So, when you are wasting your time and the time of your colleagues with lies about what position I took, and what McClockton actually did, make sure you show them unedited copies of our dialogue.  Not only will they see what I said and your misrepresentation but your attack on my character and unnecessary cursing. You are doing a good job of representing yourself and your colleagues. I doubt you have what it takes to be that honest with them or yourself.<br>I would actually love to be there when you have this conversation with them. Watching their embarrassment would be amusing.

@Robu Gee, Robu, you are misrepresenting what McClockton did and what I said about the high possibility that he would have been arrested.  Something I said more than once. So, when you are wasting your time and the time of your colleagues with lies about what position I took, and what McClockton actually did, make sure you show them unedited copies of our dialogue.  Not only will they see what I said and your misrepresentation but your attack on my character and unnecessary cursing. You are doing a good job of representing yourself and your colleagues. I doubt you have what it takes to be that honest with them or yourself.
I would actually love to be there when you have this conversation with them. Watching their embarrassment would be amusing.

@omarajax2 Yes, which part of that is confusing to you?  We were talking about a hypothetical that changes the dynamics of the situation.

@omarajax2 Yes, which part of that is confusing to you?  We were talking about a hypothetical that changes the dynamics of the situation.

@Anthony Dunkley yeah "defending" yourself when he took steps back already

@Anthony Dunkley yeah "defending" yourself when he took steps back already

@Robu your explanation is wrong; it is not logical; it is simplistic and can certainly be argued in court.  It certainly can be argued in court . McClockton was provoked when he say his family under what he probably believed was a verbal attack on his family.  He is not a third party to use your premise. Was he justified based on this provocation would have been decided in court if he had not been murdered.<br>I know you will continue because you want to be right but you are not. You ignore what the Florida court decided or inferred even though you initially used Florida law as your evidence for your position.  But rant on…

@Robu your explanation is wrong; it is not logical; it is simplistic and can certainly be argued in court.  It certainly can be argued in court . McClockton was provoked when he say his family under what he probably believed was a verbal attack on his family.  He is not a third party to use your premise. Was he justified based on this provocation would have been decided in court if he had not been murdered.
I know you will continue because you want to be right but you are not. You ignore what the Florida court decided or inferred even though you initially used Florida law as your evidence for your position.  But rant on…

@M. Diane Julie Benton I very much explained to you that you can't reasonably provoke a third party you don't know exists, especially not one that has no idea what is going on. You then went on a rant about women, children, and the elderly despite none of them getting special provocation privileges.

@M. Diane Julie Benton I very much explained to you that you can't reasonably provoke a third party you don't know exists, especially not one that has no idea what is going on. You then went on a rant about women, children, and the elderly despite none of them getting special provocation privileges.

@Robu dear, dear…you have yet to explain provocation from a legal standpoint. I do not have to call upon my lawyer friends. I will take the words of the Florida lawyers.  It is interesting that you refuse.  I will keep saying that in the end, it doesn’t matter.  The Florida legal system has spoken and Drejka is where he belongs. Your ranting will not change that. Rant on Robu…rant on

@Robu dear, dear…you have yet to explain provocation from a legal standpoint. I do not have to call upon my lawyer friends. I will take the words of the Florida lawyers.  It is interesting that you refuse.  I will keep saying that in the end, it doesn’t matter.  The Florida legal system has spoken and Drejka is where he belongs. Your ranting will not change that. Rant on Robu…rant on

@M. Diane Julie Benton Diane, Julia, whatever your name is. You're choosing to be  ignorant at this point. You don't understand provocation from a legal stance. Please contact one of those many lawyers you know and get back to me. The fact you keep insinuating that I am for what Drejka did just shows how the nuance of the conversation was lost on you.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Diane, Julia, whatever your name is. You're choosing to be  ignorant at this point. You don't understand provocation from a legal stance. Please contact one of those many lawyers you know and get back to me. The fact you keep insinuating that I am for what Drejka did just shows how the nuance of the conversation was lost on you.

@Robu you will keep just keep ranting like a William Faulkner character. you, like some failed rhetoricians or alleged rhetoricians, keep changing your claim and supporting evidence.  You can keep ranting.  I have explained it more than once. I have pointed to experts from Florida since you claim is based on Florida law. <br>I do find your rants amusing.  In many ways you are like your friend Drejka.  He is a bully trying to make others bend to his will because he believed he was the only one who was right. Your claim about provocation is not logical.  You can rant all you want.

@Robu you will keep just keep ranting like a William Faulkner character. you, like some failed rhetoricians or alleged rhetoricians, keep changing your claim and supporting evidence.  You can keep ranting.  I have explained it more than once. I have pointed to experts from Florida since you claim is based on Florida law.
I do find your rants amusing.  In many ways you are like your friend Drejka.  He is a bully trying to make others bend to his will because he believed he was the only one who was right. Your claim about provocation is not logical.  You can rant all you want.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Explain provocation then and how it works in  a self defense case. You can sit here and say the prosecutor said all you want you don't understand what you are saying. Stop beating around the bush and explain. Shut me up by proving me wrong.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Explain provocation then and how it works in  a self defense case. You can sit here and say the prosecutor said all you want you don't understand what you are saying. Stop beating around the bush and explain. Shut me up by proving me wrong.

@Robu I doubt you are a lawyer.  You cannot seem to understand the Florida law as presented in this case.  You certainly don’t understand what the Florida prosecutor argued on the reasonable person standards l, his words, not mine.  You fail to address his argument during the closing of the case. Attacking my character and my linguistic and cognitive abilities seems to be your best tactic which is truly sad for you.  I have worked with many lawyers as have friends who are lawyers. I do not believe you are a practicing attorney.

@Robu I doubt you are a lawyer.  You cannot seem to understand the Florida law as presented in this case.  You certainly don’t understand what the Florida prosecutor argued on the reasonable person standards l, his words, not mine.  You fail to address his argument during the closing of the case. Attacking my character and my linguistic and cognitive abilities seems to be your best tactic which is truly sad for you.  I have worked with many lawyers as have friends who are lawyers. I do not believe you are a practicing attorney.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Well yeah, it's hard to put somebody on trial when they are dead. You say you haven't change your position but your position is nothing. My original comment on here was correcting Chris' misunderstanding of provocation and you less eloquently continued the trend of not understanding how it works. I'm a lawyer this is my field of expertise. I'm telling you you don't understand what you're talking about. You're taking bits and pieces you midly comprehend and are spewing them out. Which somehow you are conflating that with making a cogent point.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Well yeah, it's hard to put somebody on trial when they are dead. You say you haven't change your position but your position is nothing. My original comment on here was correcting Chris' misunderstanding of provocation and you less eloquently continued the trend of not understanding how it works. I'm a lawyer this is my field of expertise. I'm telling you you don't understand what you're talking about. You're taking bits and pieces you midly comprehend and are spewing them out. Which somehow you are conflating that with making a cogent point.

@Robu  LOL.. McClockton was not on trial.  I said earlier that he might have been arrested if he had not been murdered.
But his action were not enough for self defense on the part of Drejka.  The evidence, video and witnesses, showed McClockton backing away.  Retreating and not verbally threatening harm to Drejka.
Nor did Drejka try to ascertain if he was a threat.
According to the Florida police, prosecutors, judge, and jury, Drejka’s self defense claim did not meet the criteria of the Florida laws on self defense.  What part of the Florida legal action don’t you understand.  It was under the Florida system that he was this discussion convicted. It seems that you are not understanding the words.  I have not changed my stance throughout discussion. I have repeated statements and because you are having difficulty, I have been more explicit.
BTW, you know that Drejka wa doing more than just a yell at the woman and children.  He was circling the car and behaving in what one might deemed as a threatening manner to total strangers.  He felt entitled to do so and emboldened because he was armed with a gun.  Here was this seemingly defenseless woman with her small children.  I know that you think that is bs…maybe you do not have children.  I might have stepped at 5’2” and at 72 years to confront him on behalf of this family. More than likely, I would have stepped in to tell him to leave them alone.  But, in the end, Drejka was proven to be a murderer and threat to society.  He is where he belongs.
I know, according to you, I do not understand my words.  You are hilarious and feel so entitled that you are right that you ignore the Florida judgment.

Agree for the most part. But i do have to say that him saying "neutralizing the threat" isnt a thing of him separating himself from the gravity of the situation. If youre getting robbed, and lets say you wrestle the gun out of the perpetrators hands and shoot him. You might feel completely justified. But someone could come up and say "Wow you just murdered a guy who has a wife and kids instead of giving him your wallet". You can always make whatever shooting, justified or unjustified, seem batshit insane.<br>Clearly if he thought the law was on his side, he would take the "neutralizing a threat" instead of the "murdering a guy in front of his wife and kids" route. I dont think its nefarious.

Agree for the most part. But i do have to say that him saying "neutralizing the threat" isnt a thing of him separating himself from the gravity of the situation. If youre getting robbed, and lets say you wrestle the gun out of the perpetrators hands and shoot him. You might feel completely justified. But someone could come up and say "Wow you just murdered a guy who has a wife and kids instead of giving him your wallet". You can always make whatever shooting, justified or unjustified, seem batshit insane.
Clearly if he thought the law was on his side, he would take the "neutralizing a threat" instead of the "murdering a guy in front of his wife and kids" route. I dont think its nefarious.

@M. Diane Julie Benton No, you think you know Florida law better than they do because you are spouting nonsense. That's not how provocation works in a legal sense. And even if the push was provoked, which it wasn't, you are still allowed to defend yourself if the threat level rises to you reasonably fearing for your life.  A conversation, even a heated one, does not rise to the level of provoking an attack from a third party. If, by your example, you see somebody yell at an old woman im the street and push the person yelling to the ground, you're more than likely getting charged with an assault. I'll reiterate again because you're getting it. You do not understand the words you are saying.

@M. Diane Julie Benton No, you think you know Florida law better than they do because you are spouting nonsense. That's not how provocation works in a legal sense. And even if the push was provoked, which it wasn't, you are still allowed to defend yourself if the threat level rises to you reasonably fearing for your life.  A conversation, even a heated one, does not rise to the level of provoking an attack from a third party. If, by your example, you see somebody yell at an old woman im the street and push the person yelling to the ground, you're more than likely getting charged with an assault. I'll reiterate again because you're getting it. You do not understand the words you are saying.

@Robu you seemed to miss the point.  Your logic that he was he was found guilty because of his “confession” and that nothing else matters… your logic which might lead someone to think that you do not believe in a trial and how things are done.

I will humor your provocation criteria.  if someone, a stranger, breaks into my house, i am provoked to act and defend myself. If someone assaults or verbally threatens or seems threatening to my neighbor, even if they do not know I exist, I am provoked ir give cause to act. If a stranger attempts to kidnap my child, I am provoked… that is, given cause to act even if they do not know me or that I exist.  It doesn’t matter whether they know I exist, I can have justifiable cause to act. The crux of your argument seems to be that Drejka did not know the victim existed. It doesn’t matter whether he knew that McClockton existed. If you are walking down the street and you see a child, woman or older person being attacked verbally or physically, you might consider cause for action. Some people would and have. What might be seen as an impending threat can be a cause for action. You are suggesting that you would not…you consider it “bs”…eh, that is your view.  However,a reasonable person might feel provoked to intervene.
I do not care if you continue or not.  You do not see your understand certain types of rhetoric.  You do seem to think that you know more about Florida law than the prosecution, the defense, and the police.  Interesting.  In the end, a dangerous criminal (and a coward) is where he belongs.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Yes, obviously they had a trial  that's how things work. I don't think the levels are here for us. You're clearly off in la la land if you think what I was saying was that's all they had to do show a line from his interrogation and there would be no trial.  Now, no more skirting around the question. If we are going to continue, I need you to explain how I am wrong about provocation and how provocation works in a self defense case in Florida because you keep making these points to try and argue with reality but you refuse to expand on anything past a service level.

@M. Diane Julie Benton Yes, obviously they had a trial  that's how things work. I don't think the levels are here for us. You're clearly off in la la land if you think what I was saying was that's all they had to do show a line from his interrogation and there would be no trial.  Now, no more skirting around the question. If we are going to continue, I need you to explain how I am wrong about provocation and how provocation works in a self defense case in Florida because you keep making these points to try and argue with reality but you refuse to expand on anything past a service level.

@Robu  you can have his admission as well as the reasonable person standard.  If they followed your rationale, the prosecution could have simply read his statement to the police and called it a day.  Yet, they had a full trial with evidence, witnesses, and a defense. I paraphrased the Florida prosecution’s closing statement about the reasonable person standard in response the the defense attorney’s argument to justify self defense.  I am pretty sure he is quite familiar with the laws in his own state. The judge nor the defense stopped the prosecutor to correct him because he was right according to the laws of the state for which he worked.<br>I understand quite well as did the jury.

@Robu  you can have his admission as well as the reasonable person standard.  If they followed your rationale, the prosecution could have simply read his statement to the police and called it a day.  Yet, they had a full trial with evidence, witnesses, and a defense. I paraphrased the Florida prosecution’s closing statement about the reasonable person standard in response the the defense attorney’s argument to justify self defense.  I am pretty sure he is quite familiar with the laws in his own state. The judge nor the defense stopped the prosecutor to correct him because he was right according to the laws of the state for which he worked.
I understand quite well as did the jury.

@M. Diane Julie Benton I'm not trying to make Drejka out to be a "hero." Stop with that. Evey adult in this situation was an idiot and should have done things differently.  That being said, you cannot provoke an attack from a person you don't know exists. You don't understand how this works legally. Explain to me,  how one legally provokes an attack from somebody they don't see. Don't start with any of this "his family" bs that you were just going with. if you're going to sit here and grand stand by telling me I don't understand my profession. Explain legal provocation and it works in a self defense case in Florida.

You say things like, "He legal claim if fear for his life did withstand the legal criteria of a reasonable person" It didn't matter how a reasonable person would receive the incident because he admitted to the police he wasn't in fear. You don't understand the words you are saying.

Didn’t the guy initiate physical aggression first though?

Didn’t the guy initiate physical aggression first though?

@Robu your interpretation. We will never know if the victim was legally provoked because Drejka murdered him.  Socially,  most people will respond to protect their families from a verbal assault by a stranger.  Drejka probably thought he was getting an aggressive freebie because the woman was alone with her small children.  In the end, he is a coward.  If he knew a McClockton existed in relation to this family, he would not have been so cavalier.  As he said, he has never been in a fight, but he hides behind a gun.  He is a convicted murderer no matter your legal interpretation.
He legal claim if fear for his life did withstand the legal criteria of a reasonable person.  The prosecutor spelled it out in the closing. In the end Drejka is a danger to society and is where he belongs as a convicted murderer who is also a coward.
You can tell me that I don’t understand a 100 times.  It does not change the legal facts.  It seems you want to make him some sort of hero and victim when he is just a criminal.

@Robu he had choices.  He made an illegal choice.  The same is true with the McMichaels and Bryan.  Naming two cases does not mean I think all self defense cases are the same.  Had Drejka chosen to have legal representation, lawyers may have been able to help him.  But, there were witnesses, the  video, and his actions in approaching others in a threatening manner.  Like Travis, he probably would have not done well on a cross examination. Drejka is a danger to society and he is where he belongs.  I have not followed nor plan to follow the Rittenhouse or Edgecomb cases, so I will not and have not commented on either.
The two cases I have followed involved people who made the choice to initiate contact, provoke, and confront people who had been minding their own business. I’m both cases, if they were so concerned about an alleged violation of the law, they could have called the police.  Instead they chose to take the law in their own hands.  According to the outcomes in both cases, the judicial system found their actions and choices did not met the criteria of self defense.  They provoked unarmed people and then wanted to say they feared for their lives. In both cases neither victim verbally threatened these criminals with words or a gun.  Fear for your life has to meet certain legal standards.  Drejka’s victim did push him and if he had been arrested, he may have been found guilty.  However, a lawyer might argue that he was defending his family. But that should have been decided in court.
BTW, I am not embarrassed nor is the woman you referred to dumb.  If you think you know more than the the legal entities in the Drejka case, you should offer your insights.
I was assaulted by an armed person who was unprovoked. I understand fear for my life and had to make choices.

Great observations! I tell my concealed carry students they should never do anything WITH a gun that they wouldn't do WITHOUT one.

Great observations! I tell my concealed carry students they should never do anything WITH a gun that they wouldn't do WITHOUT one.

@M. Diane Julie Benton I didn't call you a name. I said you should Be embarassed, which you should. There is no one size fits all of self defense. If you're going to just throw in recent high profile self defense cases you may as well throw in Rittenhouse and Thedore Edgecome, because they are all the same to you. No nuance to any of it right? All self defense claims are the same according to you.

Also, you're wrong again. What got him convicted wasn't "murdering a man when he had other choices. He very well could have had a lawyer put together a decent self defense case, but his insistence to the police he wasn't in fear of hisife is what screwed him over.

@M. Diane Julie Benton I didn't call you a name. I said you should Be embarassed, which you should. There is no one size fits all of self defense. If you're going to just throw in recent high profile self defense cases you may as well throw in Rittenhouse and Thedore Edgecome, because they are all the same to you. No nuance to any of it right? All self defense claims are the same according to you.

Also, you're wrong again. What got him convicted wasn't "murdering a man when he had other choices. He very well could have had a lawyer put together a decent self defense case, but his insistence to the police he wasn't in fear of hisife is what screwed him over.

@Robu what got him convicted was that he murdered a man when he had other choices.  You calling me names shows your lack of intelligence. In bother cases, the perpetrators thought that self-defense was their claim to being found not guilty.  It was not.

@Robu what got him convicted was that he murdered a man when he had other choices.  You calling me names shows your lack of intelligence. In bother cases, the perpetrators thought that self-defense was their claim to being found not guilty.  It was not.

@M. Diane Julie Benton  You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. This is a vastly different case than the Ahmaud Arbery case was. You should be embarrassed for even making that comparassion . Also, call up any one of the lawyers in this trial. Provocation, as Chris and the dumb lady insinuated, is not what got Micahel Drejka convicted.

@M. Diane Julie Benton  You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. This is a vastly different case than the Ahmaud Arbery case was. You should be embarrassed for even making that comparassion . Also, call up any one of the lawyers in this trial. Provocation, as Chris and the dumb lady insinuated, is not what got Micahel Drejka convicted.

@Robu the legal system, you know, the professionals in the judicial system disagreed with you. It is the same on McMichaels and Bryan case.

@Robu the legal system, you know, the professionals in the judicial system disagreed with you. It is the same on McMichaels and Bryan case.

@ClydeJarrod37UK I agree he was a bit odd.. and yes.. he did seem to think he belonged in a cop uniform.. but i certainly think HE thought that he was innocent and had done nothing wrong.. my worst impression tho.. was when he was told the guy died.. if that was me.. i would have gone to absolute pieces.. he barely showed any emotion.. this is what convicted him for me!

@ClydeJarrod37UK I agree he was a bit odd.. and yes.. he did seem to think he belonged in a cop uniform.. but i certainly think HE thought that he was innocent and had done nothing wrong.. my worst impression tho.. was when he was told the guy died.. if that was me.. i would have gone to absolute pieces.. he barely showed any emotion.. this is what convicted him for me!

Because he's a grey everyday unremarkable individual that behaved like the whole world owed him ? He placed more importance on himself than he was worth, thought he was special and above the law.  A nuisance, and a quick-to violence one at that.

Because he's a grey everyday unremarkable individual that behaved like the whole world owed him ? He placed more importance on himself than he was worth, thought he was special and above the law.  A nuisance, and a quick-to violence one at that.

You are INCREDIBLY dismissive of MANY of the facts in every statement u make.. Would the matter be different if it was a 80 year old women that he pushed over??? or.. what if HE had died from the push?? Thousands die from what look like innocuous falls and scrapes on the daily!!! you down playing the violence that was propagated against this man is just as egregious as any statement made in FAVOR of the murderer..

You are INCREDIBLY dismissive of MANY of the facts in every statement u make.. Would the matter be different if it was a 80 year old women that he pushed over??? or.. what if HE had died from the push?? Thousands die from what look like innocuous falls and scrapes on the daily!!! you down playing the violence that was propagated against this man is just as egregious as any statement made in FAVOR of the murderer..

@Anthony Dunkley If someone pushes you, that's not a fight. You enter the fight when you physically retaliate. You can always just walk away. Getting pushed does not "get you into a fight you didn't conscent to". If you get pummeled with no chance of escape, <i>that</i> is when you're in a fight you didn't consent to.

@Anthony Dunkley If someone pushes you, that's not a fight. You enter the fight when you physically retaliate. You can always just walk away. Getting pushed does not "get you into a fight you didn't conscent to". If you get pummeled with no chance of escape, _that_ is when you're in a fight you didn't consent to.

@Anthony Dunkley he didn't consent to it...he started it

@Anthony Dunkley he didn't consent to it...he started it

@Junior <br>You saved many from having to say that.

@Junior
You saved many from having to say that.

@bewing77
That’s where the term Dangerous Freedom comes into play.
Everyone should be responsible with their actions equally , regardless of being armed and or able to defend oneself by hand.
Peace and Grace.

@bewing77
That’s where the term Dangerous Freedom comes into play.
Everyone should be responsible with their actions equally , regardless of being armed and or able to defend oneself by hand.
Peace and Grace.

@carmenl163 Also even if it is a "ridiculously broad range" the bare minimum is still 200,000 every year which vastly outweighs the amount of deaths by firearms each year which over 60% is suicide and the deaths that aren't justifiable self defense cases are majority gang on gang violence. All you have to do is look at the statistics of one city, Chicago, to see how much gang violence adds to tally. You claim to provide statistics to backup your point but only provided one with absolutely zero context.

@carmenl163 Also even if it is a "ridiculously broad range" the bare minimum is still 200,000 every year which vastly outweighs the amount of deaths by firearms each year which over 60% is suicide and the deaths that aren't justifiable self defense cases are majority gang on gang violence. All you have to do is look at the statistics of one city, Chicago, to see how much gang violence adds to tally. You claim to provide statistics to backup your point but only provided one with absolutely zero context.

@carmenl163 You do realize that those teens killed by gun violence are overwhelming teens in gangs the gun eachother down every single day. Gangs never aquire guns legally and a lot of the guns they use are already banned outright in the entire country. Try again because passing more laws will never remove that gun from situation considering the ridiculously large black market for firearms that already exists and regulating firearms more would increase the black market.

@carmenl163 You do realize that those teens killed by gun violence are overwhelming teens in gangs the gun eachother down every single day. Gangs never aquire guns legally and a lot of the guns they use are already banned outright in the entire country. Try again because passing more laws will never remove that gun from situation considering the ridiculously large black market for firearms that already exists and regulating firearms more would increase the black market.

@jordan p I will gladly take over from @little loner and provide some statistics. "Gun violence was the leading cause of death for all children and teens ages 1-19 in 2018, surpassing motor vehicle accidents for the first time in history. Children and teens are far more likely to die from gunfire than COVID-19. In 2019, nine children and teens were killed with guns each day in America—one every 2 hours and 36 minutes." (Wisqars data from the CDC)
To me, this seems enough information to change some beliefs regarding gun- safety.
Also, I am not impressed by 'what ifs... scenarios', like the FBI one: "Our FBI has stated that somewhere between 200,000 to 2 million lives are saved each year by legally owned firearms used for self-defense." You just cannot know what would have happened if there was no firearm in the situation. That's why it is such a ridiculously broad range, they simply don't have a clue.

@Christiaan Ingram that and the guy wasn’t even really fighting with him when he got shot. He backed away, literally walked backwards as soon as the guy fell to the ground. Had he not shot, it most likely would’ve been done and over with.

@Christiaan Ingram that and the guy wasn’t even really fighting with him when he got shot. He backed away, literally walked backwards as soon as the guy fell to the ground. Had he not shot, it most likely would’ve been done and over with.

@Becky Clawson Becky, I suggest actually reading and putting your thinking cap on because the conversation we were having was a little more nuanced than that. I never said the outcome of this case was wrong.

@Becky Clawson Becky, I suggest actually reading and putting your thinking cap on because the conversation we were having was a little more nuanced than that. I never said the outcome of this case was wrong.

@Robu weird flex because this case absolutely didn’t go the way you’re saying it should’ve. Perhaps you’re not the best attorney. 🤡

@Robu weird flex because this case absolutely didn’t go the way you’re saying it should’ve. Perhaps you’re not the best attorney. 🤡

That "father of 3" (as if that's some heroic & hard accomplishment)..... WON'T ever again be meeting a situation with unnecessary violence !

That "father of 3" (as if that's some heroic & hard accomplishment)..... WON'T ever again be meeting a situation with unnecessary violence !

@Ezpzcz You could easily use the other side of the coin. It's better not to be obnoxious by being lazy parking in a handicapped spot cos you don't know who its going to piss off.

At the end of the day the victim in this scenario is the man that died. Not the guy in jail. So if lessons should be taught its teaching how to stay alive not "how to stay out of jail"

@Ezpzcz You could easily use the other side of the coin. It's better not to be obnoxious by being lazy parking in a handicapped spot cos you don't know who its going to piss off.

At the end of the day the victim in this scenario is the man that died. Not the guy in jail. So if lessons should be taught its teaching how to stay alive not "how to stay out of jail"

Yea but if you think about it, before he pulled a gun he wasn't the "garbage human being" he was just someone pissed off that someone that wasn't handicapped is parked in a handicapped spot, even though there was a bunch of other open spaces to park.

That's what's really scary.

Yea but if you think about it, before he pulled a gun he wasn't the "garbage human being" he was just someone pissed off that someone that wasn't handicapped is parked in a handicapped spot, even though there was a bunch of other open spaces to park.

That's what's *really* scary.

Also, no where in the article does it state that guns saved 2.5 million lives only that it was possible that up 2.5 million situations where a gun was used in self-defense. A good person with a gun MAY save lives but we have far too many that have no business being near a weapon.

Also, no where in the article does it state that guns saved 2.5 million lives only that it was possible that up 2.5 million situations where a gun was used in self-defense. A good person with a gun MAY save lives but we have far too many that have no business being near a weapon.

@Brad Saunders Cannibals may have murdered and stewed between 0 and 1.9 Million American Orphans last year.

/s

If you can't provide a method or a source, a guess that ranges almost 2 Million occurences is rediculous.

@Brad Saunders Cannibals may have murdered and stewed between 0 and 1.9 Million American Orphans last year.

/s

If you can't provide a method or a source, a guess that ranges almost 2 Million occurences is rediculous.

@BlenderBanana Jordan P does. According to 2019 data between 60000 to 2.5 million acts of self defense MAY jave occurred during that year. He chose the highest number to help his case. Almost an impossible statistic to prove given how many aren't reported, false reports, but the report admits this data is unreliable.

@BlenderBanana Jordan P does. According to 2019 data between 60000 to 2.5 million acts of self defense MAY jave occurred during that year. He chose the highest number to help his case. Almost an impossible statistic to prove given how many aren't reported, false reports, but the report admits this data is unreliable.

@Anthony Dunkley I agree with apart of what you said. But disagree with the part where u said "he had time to line up that shot when the guy backed off" he had time to NOT fire that shot when the guy backed off but because Drek's thought it was revenge he had time to fire his weapon.

@Anthony Dunkley I agree with apart of what you said. But disagree with the part where u said "he had time to line up that shot when the guy backed off" he had time to NOT fire that shot when the guy backed off but because Drek's thought it was revenge he had time to fire his weapon.

I agree. But he does have the right to defend himself by someone he tackled him

I agree. But he does have the right to defend himself by someone he tackled him

Just imagine this crime long ago. No questions asked he’d be free because of race. But now cameras are everywhere and finally we are able to see the truth. From thugs to police officers.

Just imagine this crime long ago. No questions asked he’d be free because of race. But now cameras are everywhere and finally we are able to see the truth. From thugs to police officers.

@Oritsu He wanted to. He just saw the gun and went 'nope'

@Oritsu He wanted to. He just saw the gun and went 'nope'

@Soraya Kapetti So, genuine question. If I blindsided you, pushed you to the ground, and continued to attack you, are you not allowed to defend yourself with deadly force because I don't have a knife or gun? If I had a gun or knige are you going to wait until I have my gun out ready to shoot or my knife within stabbing distance to try and draw on me when I already have the upper hand?

@Soraya Kapetti So, genuine question. If I blindsided you, pushed you to the ground, and continued to attack you, are you not allowed to defend yourself with deadly force because I don't have a knife or gun? If I had a gun or knige are you going to wait until I have my gun out ready to shoot or my knife within stabbing distance to try and draw on me when I already have the upper hand?

@bewing77 ---- Please, please, do NOT judge law abiding citizens who have a CCP.
This guy, Drejlka, is an idiot.
He went looking for trouble, bothering people who are simply living their lives.
He's a bully, and a dangerously ignorant one, at that.
He had NO reason to pick an argument with Michael's wife.
HE was the aggressor -- confronting and bothering people who aren't harming anyone. The parking lot was mostly empty, ffs!
People who educate themselves about firearm laws, and attend firearm safety lessons (which are required) know that carrying is not the means to solve arguments.

It's bully's like Drejlka who make the rest of the law abiding, reasonable people who carry look bad.
He is the exception, not the rule.

@Christiaan Ingram --- exactly; Drejkla was in the habit of confronting people who parked in handicapped parking without a permit. He was a self-appointed 'enforcer' going around irritating people to no good purpose.
In other words, NOT minding his own business.
Michael heard raised voices and went outside to see Drejlka arguing with his wife.
Basically, Drejlka was harassing her --- a mom with 2 kids in a car waiting for her spouse to return. If Drejlka had let them be, Michael would have returned to the car, and the family would be on their way.

It made me feel sick to see that creep walk around the car, with a presumption that he needed to bother people who were simply going about their day.

I guess this case really bothers me more than others I've read.

It makes you angry because a rat killed a dog after a man gave the rat a lethal dog whistle.

It makes you angry because a rat killed a dog after a man gave the rat a lethal dog whistle.

@mantenimiento Isn’t it a bit unfair to compare slamming someone to the ground to shooting someone who is backing up

@mantenimiento Isn’t it a bit unfair to compare slamming someone to the ground to shooting someone who is backing up

The thing is, the other guy felt justified to slam him against the ground

The thing is, the other guy felt justified to slam him against the ground

Agreed! I wouldn't be surprised if this exact thing happened but rather than a push, he yelled and grabbed his shoulder

Agreed! I wouldn't be surprised if this exact thing happened but rather than a push, he yelled and grabbed his shoulder

He would come in handy now with all the carjackings going on.. 🤣🤣

He would come in handy now with all the carjackings going on.. 🤣🤣

Well by the same token, the victim also initiated a fight against a man for whom he knew nothing, he ignored whether he was carrying a gun or not. But he thought of it smart to go from behind and push him extremely violently. Now I get it, he had his kids and wife there but still the shooter was not yet aggressive, he did not do anything physical, he was just arguing with his wife. The victim thought he had the advantage coming sneakily from behind and pushing him literally flying him in the air and dropping him on the ground which of course initiate the knee-jerk reaction of taking out his gun and shooting him. Wrong to do so? Wrong of course. But we need also to remind the wrong doing of the victim no matter if it was on a lesser degree. I mean, beyond any legal concerns here, you don't go around in a country where there is high percentage of gun ownership to start physical fights like these precisely because you never know if the other person is carrying a gun.

I think in here there is a lot of racism against the white guy. If you reversed the races there would be far more people trying to find excuses for the shooter - and don't even try to say otherwise. That sneaky push from behind was extremely violent. It does not matter if it was not lethal (which could actually be in case he landed with his head down - people died by far less violent falls), it was still extremely violent and extremely vicious. If the victim just went in front of the guy between him and his wife none of that would had happened.. But the victim chose to attack from behind. The viciousness of his attack triggered the violent reaction from the shooter. Now don't get triggered by that, Ii am just explaining the basics here, I am not morally, let alone legally, justifying the shooter : this was still a murder, but not a cold-blooded one. It was a hot-blooded murder in the middle of a violent physical fight. The shooter did not kill the victim for fearing his life but rather for revenge for that vicious attack. It is clear cut.

I love your closing argument..you make better sense than his own lawyer.

I love your closing argument..you make better sense than his own lawyer.

Hello he was looking for that energy ! Wen he 1st woke up this morning

Hello he was looking for that energy ! Wen he 1st woke up this morning

Well... why not? Statistically the people who think like him in such situations get to live far more than the people who do not hink like him and just sit there hoping for the best. In this instance the attacker was (probably)not going to attack a 2nd time but in many other instances the attacker goes berserk and kills the attacked.

Well... why not? Statistically the people who think like him in such situations get to live far more than the people who do not hink like him and just sit there hoping for the best. In this instance the attacker was (probably)not going to attack a 2nd time but in many other instances the attacker goes berserk and kills the attacked.

@TWW Buddy, I have a dozen comments on here. You're going to have to be a bit more specific in what you're talking about.

@TWW Buddy, I have a dozen comments on here. You're going to have to be a bit more specific in what you're talking about.

I couldn't or wouldn't have said it better!!! Except last sentence i think u ment "then not that" 2 thumbs up anyway TY

I couldn't or wouldn't have said it better!!! Except last sentence i think u ment "then not that" 2 thumbs up anyway TY

Agree with all this, but need to add also that the victim also started shit with a stranger and was actually the one who made it physical...

Agree with all this, but need to add also that the victim also started shit with a stranger and was actually the one who made it physical...

@Racmaster00 The irony here is almost palpable.

@Racmaster00 The irony here is almost palpable.

@Robu ok internet warrior, keep fighting the needless fight

@Robu ok internet warrior, keep fighting the needless fight

@Nic B If we are being honest we've failed the youth of today if this is the best trolling they can produce.

@Nic B If we are being honest we've failed the youth of today if this is the best trolling they can produce.

@Racmaster00 I don't believe you're aware of what a real life conversation is if you think a discussion where people dissagree is "cringe" and one party of the 10+ participating is just here because they love to argue. I suggest going outside and talking to people. It will help you once you get out of middle school.

@Racmaster00 I don't believe you're aware of what a real life conversation is if you think a discussion where people dissagree is "cringe" and one party of the 10+ participating is just here because they love to argue. I suggest going outside and talking to people. It will help you once you get out of middle school.

@Racmaster00 Nephew, go pay attention in class. The grown ups are talking right now.

@Racmaster00 Nephew, go pay attention in class. The grown ups are talking right now.

This video was on a self defence YT channel. Guy thought he was justified in shooting. Totally crazy to me.

This video was on a self defence YT channel. Guy thought he was justified in shooting. Totally crazy to me.

@Charles Gutierrez My bad. I'll be sure to work more at the job I definitley don't have.

@Charles Gutierrez My bad. I'll be sure to work more at the job I definitley don't have.

@Robu could've been the president, man. Stop wasting so much damn time! 🙄

@Robu could've been the president, man. Stop wasting so much damn time! 🙄

@Looking 4 Things Ah yes, 10 short comments spread across two weeks. Very time consuming.

@Looking 4 Things Ah yes, 10 short comments spread across two weeks. Very time consuming.

@Robu The attorneys I know are too busy to argue with people on YouTube.

@Robu The attorneys I know are too busy to argue with people on YouTube.

@Looking 4 Things Well Ms. President I got my Bachelors from EWU and my JD from the University of Idaho, so its little awkward for you here.

@Looking 4 Things Well Ms. President I got my Bachelors from EWU and my JD from the University of Idaho, so its little awkward for you here.

@Robu If you're a lawyer Im the President of the U.S.

@Robu If you're a lawyer Im the President of the U.S.

@Looking 4 Things Lady, I'm literally a lawyer. I've been telling you for weeks now how this works from a legal perspective and your beloved chocolate kiwi isn't right about provocation. This weird freak out session you're having in the comments needs to stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

@Looking 4 Things Lady, I'm literally a lawyer. I've been telling you for weeks now how this works from a legal perspective and your beloved chocolate kiwi isn't right about provocation. This weird freak out session you're having in the comments needs to stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

@Looking 4 Things I am Grateful that You are as direct with Your misgivings and disgust with these peoples behavior,, as You are.

Their pretensions and rage in response to the necessary Changes of our Nation are a threat to all of us. Our Welfare, Democracy, and Empire.

@Looking 4 Things I am Grateful that You are as direct with Your misgivings and disgust with these peoples behavior,, as You are.

Their pretensions and rage in response to the necessary Changes of our Nation are a threat to all of us. Our Welfare, Democracy, and Empire.

@Gary Schultz Perhaps, but  you'd be behind bars

@Gary Schultz Perhaps, but  you'd be behind bars

If he was gonna get "beaten" and "kicked" then he probably would've been justified imo.

However the guy was backing away and clearly did not want to do those things to him.

If he was gonna get "beaten" and "kicked" then he probably would've been justified imo.

However the guy was backing away and clearly did not want to do those things to him.

@Looking 4 Things Show me how that's is comparable to this situation.

@Looking 4 Things Show me how that's is comparable to this situation.

@Robu If I was out with someone of your mindset a criminal could attack me take my purse and knock me to the ground while you're trying to figure out legal arguments. Very scary

@Robu If I was out with someone of your mindset a criminal could attack me take my purse and knock me to the ground while you're trying to figure out legal arguments. Very scary

@jordan p Do you have a source for the claimof the "FBI attributing a quarter of a million lives saved by gun ownership"?

@jordan p Do you have a source for the claimof the "FBI attributing a quarter of a million lives saved by gun ownership"?

@Anthony Dunkley In America;  to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon is to accept responsibility for the awesome power it conveys.

Your are explicitly told to avoid confrontations, to defer from belligerent conversation, and to de-escalate non-threatening circumstances.

This is not about "Honor" or "Rules of Engagement",

This is a case of, Micheal Drejka having a history of brandishing his weapon- wrecklessly, when frustrated in public, and inevitibly shooting someone.

In this instance, during an incident that he provoked, while carrying a gun.

@Anthony Dunkley In America;  to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon is to accept responsibility for the awesome power it conveys.

Your are explicitly told to avoid confrontations, to defer from belligerent conversation, and to de-escalate non-threatening circumstances.

This is not about "Honor" or "Rules of Engagement",

This is a case of, Micheal Drejka having a history of brandishing his weapon- wrecklessly, when frustrated in public, and inevitibly shooting someone.

In this instance, during an incident that he provoked, while carrying a gun.

A well adopted solution would be to let the police carry and put the rest in jail for possessing a gun -

A well adopted solution would be to let the police carry and put the rest in jail for possessing a gun -

So, he's obviously been to at least some conceal carry courses.  He was using canned phrases from those courses.  You're taught "neutralizing the threat" is a term utilized to show that you were in fear of great bodily harm or death, which you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself from.  The thing he forgot from the CCW course is that if you are carrying, it is also your duty to try and AVOID confrontation and the people I talk to in the 2A community are all on the same page about that.  When I carry I am looking to back off, and get out of there, you never want to skin that pistol unless you're certain you cannot get out of the situation safely.

So, he's obviously been to at least some conceal carry courses.  He was using canned phrases from those courses.  You're taught "neutralizing the threat" is a term utilized to show that you were in fear of great bodily harm or death, which you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself from.  The thing he forgot from the CCW course is that if you are carrying, it is also your duty to try and AVOID confrontation and the people I talk to in the 2A community are all on the same page about that.  When I carry I am looking to back off, and get out of there, you never want to skin that pistol unless you're certain you cannot get out of the situation safely.

@Looking 4 Things <br>Hes dead .... I'm alive .

@Looking 4 Things
Hes dead .... I'm alive .

@Looking 4 Things A real man wouldn't run out a store and push a guy to the ground without figuring out what was going on and put his family in more danger.

@Looking 4 Things A real man wouldn't run out a store and push a guy to the ground without figuring out what was going on and put his family in more danger.

@Gary Schultz A real man would have done exactly what that father did.

@Gary Schultz A real man would have done exactly what that father did.

@jordan p I'm sorry if questions and facts about gun regulations in other countries make you feel insulted.

@jordan p I'm sorry if questions and facts about gun regulations in other countries make you feel insulted.

@Little Loner So do you have any actual argument or are you just going to keep throwing personal insults? That's something who knows they clearly lost the argument and has nothing of substance to say.

@Little Loner So do you have any actual argument or are you just going to keep throwing personal insults? That's something who knows they clearly lost the argument and has nothing of substance to say.

@jordan p how do you think the whole gun thing and the 3 armed robbers plays out in every other country?
And have you ever noticed that other countries don't have public opinions formed through fake arguments and agendas being pushed to the extreme?

Have you every like, given a thought to how other countries function or do you exclusively lap off the american plate bc y'all are so special nothing else compares?

@jordan p how do you think the whole gun thing and the 3 armed robbers plays out in every other country?
And have you ever noticed that other countries don't have public opinions formed through fake arguments and agendas being pushed to the extreme?

Have you every like, given a thought to how other countries function or do you exclusively lap off the american plate bc y'all are so special nothing else compares?

@Little Loner Ahh so nice of you to put words in my mouth that I did not say instead of actually refuting my argument. Of course I have problems with mentally unstable people owning firearms. As a police officer, I consifiscate firearms off mentally unstable individuals and domestic abusers (before they're even convicted of a crime) on a normal basis. You, on the other hand, attacked Americans who rightfully believe people in the Government are coming for their guns because numerous people in the Government openly stated that as their objective. Brush up on your reading comprehension chap.

@Little Loner Ahh so nice of you to put words in my mouth that I did not say instead of actually refuting my argument. Of course I have problems with mentally unstable people owning firearms. As a police officer, I consifiscate firearms off mentally unstable individuals and domestic abusers (before they're even convicted of a crime) on a normal basis. You, on the other hand, attacked Americans who rightfully believe people in the Government are coming for their guns because numerous people in the Government openly stated that as their objective. Brush up on your reading comprehension chap.

@Looking 4 Things a lot of people...maybe most would DE-ESCALATE & just leave !!!!  keep your family safe....

@Looking 4 Things a lot of people...maybe most would DE-ESCALATE & just leave !!!!  keep your family safe....

@bewing77 i like it....
had the guy not ATTACKED
Mike 1st he'd still be alive...

@bewing77 i like it....
had the guy not ATTACKED
Mike 1st he'd still be alive...

Probably bc slavery didn’t end that long ago and this is one of the many lingering residues that it left…

Probably bc slavery didn’t end that long ago and this is one of the many lingering residues that it left…

@Junior I never meant to allege that Ingram was right, only that he wasn't completely wrong, like some others said. Provocation does have a place in U.S law.

Provocation, as defined by Cornell Law, an Ivy league law school, "'Provocation' is that which causes, at the time of the act, reason be disturbed or obscured by passion to an extent which might render ordinary persons, of average disposition, liable to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflection, and from passion, rather than judgment."

As we can see from this legal definition of provocation, someone acting in a hostile way, such as screaming point-blank at a loved one, could incite a person to be "disturbed or obscured by passion to an extent which might render ordinary persons... liable to act rashly..."

You are right, though. Nothing physical happened, although the victim had seen his loved one being yelled at. It could be argued either way, really, if provocation occurred in this instance. I never meant to assert that there was provocation, only that provocation is an important element in self-defense and that one could potentially argue it in this case.

@Junior I never meant to allege that Ingram was right, only that he wasn't completely wrong, like some others said. Provocation does have a place in U.S law.

Provocation, as defined by Cornell Law, an Ivy league law school, "'Provocation' is that which causes, at the time of the act, reason be disturbed or obscured by passion to an extent which might render ordinary persons, of average disposition, liable to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflection, and from passion, rather than judgment."

As we can see from this legal definition of provocation, someone acting in a hostile way, such as screaming point-blank at a loved one, could incite a person to be "disturbed or obscured by passion to an extent which might render ordinary persons... liable to act rashly..."

You are right, though. Nothing physical happened, although the victim had seen his loved one being yelled at. It could be argued either way, really, if provocation occurred in this instance. I never meant to assert that there *was* provocation, only that provocation is an important element in self-defense and that one could potentially argue it in this case.

@The Lone Wanderer 776.041 says you are allowed to defend yourself if you are in fear of great bodily harm or death even if you provoked something. If Drejka is on the ground getting attacked it dosnt really matter if anything was provoked. He would be in enough reasonable fear to defend himself.

Whatever was happening between Drejka and the girlfriend doesn't really matter because Mcglocklin hadn't seen it. He had no reason to believe Drejka was enough of a threat to his girlfriend to attack him. You can't go backwards with provocation. You can't say Drejka provoked the push with an altercation with another person that the attacker had no knowledge of.

@The Lone Wanderer 776.041 says you are allowed to defend yourself if you are in fear of great bodily harm or death even if you provoked something. If Drejka is on the ground getting attacked it dosnt really matter if anything was provoked. He would be in enough reasonable fear to defend himself.

Whatever was happening between Drejka and the girlfriend doesn't really matter because Mcglocklin hadn't seen it. He had no reason to believe Drejka was enough of a threat to his girlfriend to attack him. You can't go backwards with provocation. You can't say Drejka provoked the push with an altercation with another person that the attacker had no knowledge of.

@The Lone Wanderer By your own definition, we can dismiss Ingram's assertions as completely false.

Provocation of force may be a vague line, but this case doesn't even approach it. The case you cited included actual physical aggression in the form of banging on someone's car. This was an argument over parking in a handicap spot. Against someone that was not even the target of the alleged self defense. A verbal argument is in no way equivalent to a physical altercation. This holds true especially in American law.

No fists were thrown. No physical aggression was made. As far as we know, no verbal threats of physical force were made either.

Drejka was most certainly in the wrong here, but not due to any sort of provocation as the law defines it.

@Robu Actually, provocation has a great deal to do with self-defense, under 776.041.

You might be interested in what the vague phrasing of "Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself" constitutes, but you can look to something like Johnson v. State, 65 So. 3d 1147 to see that an action such as banging on the back windshield of someone's car can constitute provoking a physical altercation, which will then bar the provoker from applying self-defense to their shooting in the aforementioned physical altercation.

Of course, one could argue that force provoking self-defense wasn't even applied by McGlockton, but that is also a vague line that could be argued each way.

My point with this isn't that you are necessarily wrong, but that you weren't correct in dismissing Ingram's assertions as completely false.

And this is why you don't give anyone a gun, but only the ones that are emotionally and mentally stable enough, with thorough training and restrictions on storage so they're stored safely, where no children and no one unauthorized has access to them.

From a non American perspective, that these things can happen and getting shot by a possibly unstable or emotionally immature person on the street is just... Wild.
We have guns here. My dad owns a gun and always has. I have friends who do and I guarantee that most farmers have at least one too.
But these kinds of things don't happen here.
The last school shooting i recall was over 5 years ago, probably more like 7, cannot recall any other mass shooting really, and especially not someone getting killed in a case like this one.

To these weird "they wanna take away ma guns" people
No, no one wants to take away your guns unless you are mentally unstable or emotionally immature or underperform in the required training to get your license (a bit like failing a driver's test) or there's any other reason that might indicate you owning a gun has some potential to hurt yourself or others
So if you're still worried about your gun being taken away, you probably should've never owned it in the first place, because that'd mean you aren't mature or stable or qualified enough to own it.

Fkin murricans and their dystopian issues goddamn
That father should've never been shot and those kids should've never had to witness that whole incident

@Looking 4 Things All right, that's cool and all, but that doesn't have a bearing on the self defense argument, or why Drejka was convicted. Its not about liking legal arguments, its about reality. When somebody like Christiaan Ingram brings up  and misuses provocation, it muddies the waters of eveyones understanding of what truly went wrong here.

@Looking 4 Things All right, that's cool and all, but that doesn't have a bearing on the self defense argument, or why Drejka was convicted. Its not about liking legal arguments, its about reality. When somebody like Christiaan Ingram brings up  and misuses provocation, it muddies the waters of eveyones understanding of what truly went wrong here.

@Christiaan Ingram
1) As this case shows, you would be completely unjustified in feeling that you could kill someone and get away with it. The Trayvon Martin case is fundamentally different in that the physical evidence pointed to Martin smashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete when he was shot. It may have been morally wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin, but not illegal. The fact that you would just ignore this part of the case demonstrates how little you truly know about it.

2) This is most certainly not the "intended consequence" of stand your ground laws. They are specifically written to exclude cases like this. Florida is a stand your ground state; the fact that Drejka was convicted directly contradicts your statement.

You made dumb comparisons and claims that are easily refuted. Not only that, you had the nerve to condescend toward people that point out how flawed your understanding of provocation is in regard to criminal law? I think you need a hard dose of self-awarness quick.

@Looking 4 Things Yes, but his kids being in the car is not a legal argument. Had he continued to attack Drejka it wouldn't have mattered. The initial encounter is irrelevant to the encounter that ultimately led to the shooting.

@Looking 4 Things Yes, but his kids being in the car is not a legal argument. Had he continued to attack Drejka it wouldn't have mattered. The initial encounter is irrelevant to the encounter that ultimately led to the shooting.

@Robu Absolutely. But lets not forget his young children were in the car as well. What kind of father would have reacted any differently? His innate defenses to protect his family kicked in and he behaved appropriately in my opinion. Any real family man would.

@Robu Absolutely. But lets not forget his young children were in the car as well. What kind of father would have reacted any differently? His innate defenses to protect his family kicked in and he behaved appropriately in my opinion. Any real family man would.

The only thing I'll say is that he was absolutely wrong, but this is a good example of not starting fights or participating in fights in public. You never know what someone is all about

The only thing I'll say is that he was absolutely wrong, but this is a good example of not starting fights or participating in fights in public. You never know what someone is all about

@Christiaan Ingram If I was you I wouldn't be trying to brag about my inability to comprehend English. You misrepresented the basic facts of what constitutes  self defense and I replied with how self defense actually works in the legal world.

@Christiaan Ingram If I was you I wouldn't be trying to brag about my inability to comprehend English. You misrepresented the basic facts of what constitutes  self defense and I replied with how self defense actually works in the legal world.

I think what separates this case from the others from me is 1) that the victim’s wife and children witnessed his death. 2) the perpetrator thought the law would be on his side despite him not only also parking illegally but also killing an unarmed man in broad daylight. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say.

I think what separates this case from the others from me is 1) that the victim’s wife and children witnessed his death. 2) the perpetrator thought the law would be on his side despite him not only also parking illegally but also killing an unarmed man in broad daylight. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say.

@Robu Hmmm  it’s not exactly clear what your point is or why you’re making it. I bet you really impressed yourself by writing it though? 😁

@Robu Hmmm  it’s not exactly clear what your point is or why you’re making it. I bet you really impressed yourself by writing it though? 😁

@Christiaan Ingram  "the shooter wasn’t just minding his business when he was pushed. He was in a shouting match with the victim’s girlfriend. This was a confrontation he provoked. " <br>Literally none of that matters in a self defense case. Had Markeis McGlockton continued to assault Michel Drejka he would have been legally justified in self defense. What ultimately put Drejka in jail wasn't the interaction with the girlfriend, it was the timing of the shot and his interview with the police. He made it clear he wasn't in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. You say he "provoked" yet that isn't how provocation works. McGlokton coming out and pushing Drejka is a second encounter completely separate from the initial interaction with the girlfriend.

@Christiaan Ingram  "the shooter wasn’t just minding his business when he was pushed. He was in a shouting match with the victim’s girlfriend. This was a confrontation he provoked. "
Literally none of that matters in a self defense case. Had Markeis McGlockton continued to assault Michel Drejka he would have been legally justified in self defense. What ultimately put Drejka in jail wasn't the interaction with the girlfriend, it was the timing of the shot and his interview with the police. He made it clear he wasn't in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. You say he "provoked" yet that isn't how provocation works. McGlokton coming out and pushing Drejka is a second encounter completely separate from the initial interaction with the girlfriend.

What you said perfectly encapsulates my thoughts about this case. This dipshit feels empowered to play amateur cop because he believes the law is on his side.

And in his defense, if I were a white man living in Florida I might believe that too.  The guy who killed Trayvon Martin initiated a confrontation and then killed him. He got off scot free…

Let’s be honest, these kind of situations are the INTENDED consequence of the “Stand Your Ground” laws being propagated in states around the country. That’s why this is so horrifying…

What you said perfectly encapsulates my thoughts about this case. This dipshit feels empowered to play amateur cop because he believes the law is on his side.

And in his defense, if I were a white man living in Florida I might believe that too.  The guy who killed Trayvon Martin initiated a confrontation and then killed him. He got off scot free…

Let’s be honest, these kind of situations are the INTENDED consequence of the “Stand Your Ground” laws being propagated in states around the country. That’s why this is so horrifying…

@Anthony Dunkley I think you’re missing a key point here…the shooter wasn’t just minding his business when he was pushed.

He was in a shouting match with the victim’s girlfriend. This was a confrontation he provoked. It was a confrontation HE thought COULD get physical.

I haven’t been in a fight for almost thirty years. But if I were to get into a loud, aggressive shouting match with a stranger in public, I’m going to watch my back.

You never know who else is with them or how they’ll approach you. Maybe “accept” is the wrong word. “Expect “ is more appropriate…

@Anthony Dunkley I think you’re missing a key point here…the shooter wasn’t just minding his business when he was pushed.

He was in a shouting match with the victim’s girlfriend. This was a confrontation he provoked. It was a confrontation HE thought COULD get physical.

I haven’t been in a fight for almost thirty years. But if I were to get into a loud, aggressive shouting match with a stranger in public, I’m going to watch my back.

You never know who else is with them or how they’ll approach you. Maybe “accept” is the wrong word. “Expect “ is more appropriate…

To me this is at the core of the problem in allowing just anyone to carry firearms in public - it emboldens them to get into situations they wouldn’t have gotten themselves into if unarmed and once they are in that situation nothing says they’ll have the cool to correctly judge how to use the weapon nor the skills to use it safely.

To me this is at the core of the problem in allowing just anyone to carry firearms in public - it emboldens them to get into situations they wouldn’t have gotten themselves into if unarmed and once they are in that situation nothing says they’ll have the cool to correctly judge how to use the weapon nor the skills to use it safely.

Well no... you don't have to accept you'll get your ass kicked, the other guy pushed him first, humans aren't all the same or have the same combat experience so why should they play by your stupid rules of self defense and get into a fight they didn't consent to? In saying that...the shooting in this incident was not justified, it was revenge, he had quite a bit of time to line up that shot when the guy backed off, it was calculated and evil

Well no... you don't have to accept you'll get your ass kicked, the other guy pushed him first, humans aren't all the same or have the same combat experience so why should they play by your stupid rules of self defense and get into a fight they didn't consent to? In saying that...the shooting in this incident was not justified, it was revenge, he had quite a bit of time to line up that shot when the guy backed off, it was calculated and evil