Newton says that is a really bad option and doesn't recommend it.

Just making sure their was a reason.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

Ummm..im just gonna go out on a limb and guess they didnt say it becasue there is a color photograph of him?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

That is pretty much the attitude the LEO who said he couldn't charge him took. "Well, what can we do?"

As to the time gap at 1:21 in the video, I think they just edited out the actual moment he was shot to reduce the graphic nature of the video.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I don't know, looks like he could be one of those white hispanics.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I may be giving too much credit to the LEO, but, I suspect it had to do with a misunderstanding about the elements of SYG. I think many people wrongly believe there is only the subjective element of SYG - i.e., whether the shooter believed he was in danger. They forget there is also an objective element - i.e., whether a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe he/she was in danger.

It may very well be true this guy, in the truest sense, really, honestly, believed he was in danger. But, that is not enough to justify the shooting. That is only the first element. A reasonable person must feel the same. That is where is has a losing case.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Does the color of the shooters skin, or the color of the dead guy really matter? Or is it only important if the shooter is white and the dead guy is black? If the shooter was blackand the dead guy was white we wouldn't even be talking about it, it would be murder 1 right away.

---

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix

Just curious: does it matter at all what actions were taken by the protagonist and the antagonist that resulted in the shooting?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I saw it too and just assumed it was because the source didn't want to show the victim's immediate reaction to being shot. It appears to me that the pistol recoils at 1:21 (showing the shot) but the immediate reaction has been edited out. That said, look at how far the bystander to the right moved in that time - 15 feet *and* had time to turn and crouch. That's at least two, maybe three seconds.

All in all, though, it seems like the only thing that matters was what transpired before 1:21 when the pistol recoils.

---

War is god

Absolutely. It is very difficult to argue SYG justified the shooting if you are the one who initiated the confrontation. Understand, however, those rolls can flip flop.

Shooter initiated the verbal confrontation. Then the victim escalated the situation to a physical one by shoving shooter to the ground. At that point, the victim because the aggressor and the shooter became the person entitled to stand his ground. The fact that shooter initiated the verbal confrontation does not prevent him from asserting he became the victim, entitled to use deadly force to defend himself, once the encounter turned physical. However, after knocking shooter to the ground, we see no evidence of further aggression that would warrant the use of deadly force.

Now, also keep in mind, a jury is made up of regular people - biases and all. So, the fact that shooter is the one who started the entire confrontation, setting in motion to events that then transpired, will most likely sway the minds of the jurors in one form or another.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Makes me wonder how many other incidents there are that weren't reported.

Something of an aside: One of the most educational experiences I've ever had was an evening observing (from behind a one-way mirror) a mock jury deliberate after being presented the competing arguments in a high-dollar personal injury and medical malpractice case. I was helping defense counsel. One of the other litigators in the big, Downtown LA defense firm videotaped the plaintiff's anticipated opening statement*, and the lawyer trying the case videotaped the defense's opening statement. The mock jury was shown the videos and was then asked to deliberate the case and render a verdict. It was utterly fascinating to see what they focused on and what they ignored. Frankly, they ignored the most important issues and got themselves wrapped around the minor, unimportant ones.

---

War is god

Easy, put the shooter in a uniform and give him a badge...

Considering the situation I think Newton might have chosen it too.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

There is not a single instructor anywhere in the world that will ever tell you to "fire your weapon into the air" to scare someone off. You either shoot at center mass or you don't shoot. This is not an old western movie, it is real life, and shooting a weapon into the air is not only illegal, it is stupid and very dangerous.

I've broken the video down by the second in slow motion.

1:17 violent push to ground
Deceased continues to approach and shooter gains his orientation
1:19 deceased stops and adjust his pants at the same time the shooter starts his draw.
1:19 bystander realizes whats going down before the gun is fully displayed.
1:20 gun is out, aimed, and the deceased takes one small step back
1:20 then you can see the gun recoil which then makes the deceased take another larger step back from impact.

Given one second to determine if it was self defense versus manslaughter, I think the jury is going to have a hard time finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's real hard to tell where the first recoil tool place, after the first small step back or after the big step back.

Trial starts today.



The manslaughter trial for a man involved in a deadly dispute last summer involving a handicapped parking spot in Florida, fueling renewed debate over the state's "stand your ground law," was set to begin Monday.
Michael Drejka, a 49-year-old white man, initially was not arrested for fatally shooting Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old black man, on July 19, 2018. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to arrest Drejka, noting Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows citizens to defend themselves if they fear “imminent death or great bodily harm.’’
Prosecutors ultimately charged Drejka with manslaughter. Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe told USA TODAY last year he believes Drejka's self-defense claim can be disproved.

https://www.yahoo.com/...egins-144251464.html

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Recoil or not, the guys FIRST action was to go for his gun. There would have to be a lot more evidence shown for me to let this guy off.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Not to mention his history of threatening to kill previous people in very similar situations. Certainly seems like a guy looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

My doctoral dissertation research used people with spinal cord injuries. One was a kid who got hit by a bullet from people firing guns in the air to celebrate something or another. Talk about shitty luck.

Guilty

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Good, this stand your ground shit was just getting out of hand, perhaps this message will get through to some people who still think about this stuff...

I wonder how it would have come out if the video didn't exist, given that the shooter claimed the victim was coming at him when he shot him?

There is no doubt in my mind that if that video did not exist, he would be a free man today. Thus the absurdity of the law in question that he used to kill a guy over a parking space...The NRA and gun whackos have taken protect your home to the extreme end, and protecting just about anything, anywhere is now fair game...Almost makes me want to go out and get a concealed gun..Wait a minute....

This is the problem with many laws -- everyone has a particular scenario in mind without considering the gamut of possibilities. In fairness, it is difficult to protect ordinary, innocent Americans when dispersed among them are people that are fascinated with the idea of needing to shoot others at any moment.