JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
My whole problem with this ENTIRE situation and most people's analysis of it....why shouldn't you confront people who are being an azzhole? Does everyone on here just go about life watching people do schitty things and not do something about it?

Depends if I'm carrying. I can be quite the confrontational A-hole if I'm not, but when I am, I am pretty meek. Having to use my gun is a nightmare scenario and I try to minimize the chances I will have to.

It is unfortunate that justified righteousness is often a quick way to end up in a huge headache or worse in our society.
 
My whole problem with this ENTIRE situation and most people's analysis of it....why shouldn't you confront people who are being an azzhole? Does everyone on here just go about life watching people do schitty things and not do something about it?

It's worth noting that Drejka did not initiate the conversation precisely speaking. He was looking at the front and back of the car, which made McGlocton's girlfriend nervous, so she initiated a "conversation" in which she said she was going to get her man with the implication that a fight would ensue.

Anyway, I think Drejka was done in by the part of his interview I quote here: https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...st-defense-motions-denied.305576/post-2332288

Earlier in the interview he says he saw McGlocton engage in forward motion and I believe he believes he saw that. Even so, he cannot, despite repeated helpful prodding by the deputy, articulate a real apprehension of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Instead, he repeatedly insists he didn't know what McGlocton would have done. THAT is not a basis for shooting.
 
Reminds me of this local case that went the other way.


Apples and oranges. That guy shot a man beating up his girlfriend. Even though supposedly "women and men are equal" we have a large leftover thought process that a man beating a woman makes the killing of that man more acceptable for the public.

Compared to the previous case, man shoots other man, no woman being "protected."
 
My whole problem with this ENTIRE situation and most people's analysis of it....why shouldn't you confront people who are being an azzhole? Does everyone on here just go about life watching people do schitty things and not do something about it?

YES! Don't you know, you CAN"T ask people not to park in handicap spots, or ask people to show their key card when tailgating behind you entering a secured hotel/apartment/condo, or ask people not to bar-b-que in an area of the park designated no BBQ, or anything else these days.
 
YES! Don't you know, you CAN"T ask people not to park in handicap spots, or ask people to show their key card when tailgating behind you entering a secured hotel/apartment/condo, or ask people not to bar-b-que in an area of the park designated no BBQ, or anything else these days.

Exactly. Signs and rules mean squat if people have no consequence.
 
I've tossed chicks by their hair too. Its incredibly effective. Where the head goes, the body follows.

Well, at least the guy got a good story to build cred with his cell mates. "I totally owned that cop. Screamed shrilly in his face, blinded him with my ponytail, and kicked him smartly in the shin." No one's messing with that guy.
 
Apples and oranges. That guy shot a man beating up his girlfriend. Even though supposedly "women and men are equal" we have a large leftover thought process that a man beating a woman makes the killing of that man more acceptable for the public.

Compared to the previous case, man shoots other man, no woman being "protected."

I dont know. All the physical stuff ended and the bad guy and his girlfriend were walking away together when the shooter retrieved a gun from a bag and plugged the bad guy in the back.

If anything it's a more extreme case of the exact same principle as the Florida case where you must articulate fear of grievous harm when the guy is moving away.

Goes to show how fickle these things can be.
 
I like how people form oppinions before all the facts are present.
When it goes to trial we will find out what's what. Until then people can only assume what took place from a probably edited clip and a biased report one way or the other just like Obozo din on the Ferguson case, Baltimore case, Marten-Zimmerman case and many others.

I generally don't comment on these issues be cause a good majority of the time the facts are twisted to meet the news agency's agenda.

So until after the trial, i could care less what they are saying about it or what people think about it.
 
I like how people form oppinions before all the facts are present.
When it goes to trial we will find out what's what. Until then people can only assume what took place from a probably edited clip and a biased report one way or the other just like Obozo din on the Ferguson case, Baltimore case, Marten-Zimmerman case and many others.

I generally don't comment on these issues be cause a good majority of the time the facts are twisted to meet the news agency's agenda.

So until after the trial, i could care less what they are saying about it or what people think about it.

Psst, trials over
 
Some people will use(read: misuse) this sort of Law for just this type of Stupid Excuse to use(again: misuse) a Gun. He belongs in Jail for a VERY, VERY Long time. I'm not sure but I believe FL has the Death Penalty and in my opinion this appears to be a good use.
 
I dont know. All the physical stuff ended and the bad guy and his girlfriend were walking away together when the shooter retrieved a gun from a bag and plugged the bad guy in the back. ...

Just for factual clarity, he was hit in the side just below his nipple, the bullet traveled through both lungs and heart before stopping beneath the skin on the opposite side.
 
I dont know. All the physical stuff ended and the bad guy and his girlfriend were walking away together when the shooter retrieved a gun from a bag and plugged the bad guy in the back.

If anything it's a more extreme case of the exact same principle as the Florida case where you must articulate fear of grievous harm when the guy is moving away.

Goes to show how fickle these things can be.

Apparently I didn't read enough of the article to understand the specifics. Yeah, if you walk away, get a gun, attack is over, shoot. That goes against all preconceived notions of "defense."

Out of curiosity, what was the skin color of the deceased in that instance. It was not clear from what I read in the article.
 

Upcoming Events

Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Arms Collectors of Southwest Washington (ACSWW) gun show
Battle Ground, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top