Sheriff called parking spot shooting legal under ‘stand your ground’ laws. Prosecutors disagreed.

Arm's length from the person.

 

Don't you mean to say, as you did earlier, that he halts and then starts to back away?

 

He halted when he saw the gun. He took a couple steps back and to the side. He was shot within 10' or so in the front of his chest.

The "threat distance" that LEO's are taught is 21 feet. Inside 21 feet they are still a threat.

 

That is irrelevant, because if you not handicapped you can't park there.

Irrelevant, no matter what the situation is you can't park there if you are not handicapped. So all of that amounts to nothing.

Oh my God. I will give you credit you can come up with the bullshit excuses to defend these murderers.

 

Yes, you tell me.

 

No because folks arms are different lengths.

 

Well he didn't just walk up and give him a little push he threw him to the ground. Quite a ways away from where he was standing.

It was pretty violent and it could do Serious injury

 

They are still a threat IF they're continuing their assault. You yourself admit the gun stopped the assault by its mere presentation, he stopped and stepped back.

 

And the idea is that they're in your personal space because they can reach out and touch you.
The woman ain't even in the frame.
The initial assault was not legally justified.
The shooting doesn't appear to be justified either.

 

Ok, so what is the argument?

 

The first dumbass shouldn't have opened up with violence giving the 2nd dumbass an excuse (arguably) to shoot him.
The 2nd dumbass shouldn't have opened fire on a dumbass backing away.

That's not an argument. That's a fact.

 

It made him pause. The entire event happened in seconds.

He had already been attacked and been advanced on until he drew the firearm.

You can say that the firearm stopped the aggression, but you do not know what would have happened had he not pulled the trigger. He had already carried out an attack, pressed the attack, and was within distance to strike again.

That is a clear cut justification to fear bodily injury or death. The attacker had not left the scene, and he was not shot while running away, nor was he pursued.

Was it necessary for him to pull the trigger? Maybe not, but maybe it was. We don't know because he did pull the trigger.

Has anyone been killed with a firearm trained on someone facing them unarmed? Yes, they have.

Therefore, you cannot say that just because he had a firearm trained on him, and the attacker stepped back, that the encounter was over and the victim was not justified in his fear of further injury.

 

I agree both dumbasses, sometimes you will become a dumbass when you think your family is in danger.

 

It made him pause and then retreat as you yourself have stated twice now. Stopping the assault.
Not justified. You don't get to shoot the ****er because you missed your chance because you took too long lining it up while circumstances changed and now you're frustrated

 

Except a fear that she was in danger was not reasonable, hence his assault was not justified.
She wasn't even close enough to be in the same frame as them in the video ffs.
Its something to react to, its not something to react with force to in that context.

 

Pray tell. Has something been lost in translation between the communications being engaged in between yourself and myself? The actions of the woman in question are not being defended on the part of myself, rather it is being explained how her actions were wrong, both legally and morally.

 

Sure it would be reasonable, if a man walked up to your vehicle cursing and yelling with your kids inside you don't think it would be reasonable for her to think they were in danger. I disagree with that assessment.

So had the man shot into the vehicle or smashed in a window with his weapon would that be close enough.

 

No what you are babbling about is totally irrelevant, of course you are not defending her she is the wrong color. The only thing she did wrong was parking in a handicap space when she wasn't, with that said Drejka had NO AUTHORITY to say **** to her about it. What was he going to do write her a ticket.

 

Off topic and irrelevant. It does not matter what color she was when her actions were illegal.

The reason it is wrong is because it is a criminal offense.

Drejka was under no legal or moral obligation to be silent, or otherwise not point out that her actions were illegal.

 

Shes not even in frame in the video. He wasn't near enough to be an imminent threat nor was he presenting a weapon or even violence.


Yes it would be. Had he brandished it or threatened her with it that would also be

 

When it comes to you, yea it matters a lot.

It's a misdemeanor, you pay a 500 dollar fine for it.

We will see if his actions were illegal or not.

 

Since we couldn't hear him, we don't know what he was presenting.

Well time will tell what he did or didn't do.

 

No claim of " he threatened me with a gun an my poor husband was just trying to defend me".
That would've been day 1 ****.

He wasn't justified. Neither was the initial assault.

 

Never claimed either one was justified, but he set this whole set of events into motion.

 

Then actually go about proving such to be the case.

Does such change the fact that the woman in question knowingly chose to engage in an illegal act, because she saw nothing wrong with it?

There is no legal standard in the united states that holds a person cannot point out that the actions being committed by another person are an illegal offense. There is no so-called "shut up and mind your own business" doctrine.