In Defense of the Second Amendment

Guy that sat in for Levin today brought up a good point, why just guns? If somebody is dangerous enough to take their guns, how about their knives? Their car? What if they drive a school bus, take their job? Where does it end?
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chuck-schumer-wants-fbi-to-sign-off-on-body-armor-sales

Chuck Schumer wants FBI to sign off on body armor sales
New York Post

Fox News Flash top headlines for August 11
Fox News Flash top headlines for August 11 are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com
Sen. Chuck Schumer on Sunday proposed new legislation to require the FBI to sign off on body armor sales to civilians.
The announcement comes one week after mass killer Connor Betts — clad in body armor — opened fire in a trendy Dayton, Ohio, neighborhood and killed nine people before he was gunned down by police.
Schumer said anyone can now buy a bulletproof vest for $185 and a tactical mask for $10 under current law, Schumer said at a press conference at his Midtown office.
“With the click of a mouse, scroll of a thumb, dialing of a phone, someone up to no good can get this,” he said. “What we have learned is that a good number of those intent on mass shootings buy body armor,” the Senate minority leader said. “They want to kill as many people as possible.”
The restrictions would not apply to law enforcement personnel.
Read more from the New York Post.
Sure chuck, as soon as you give up your body armor.
Guess I’m going to have to step that process up, I was hoping to lose some weight first
 

KRSOne

Registered User
The plate carrier is what you seek. Just make sure to get at least Lvl III plates.
I got the one at 05:21 about 4-5 years ago? I hope they don't expire... Not really a daily wear type of thing, its heavier than the other stuff.

 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
I got the one at 05:21 about 4-5 years ago? I hope they don't expire... Not really a daily wear type of thing, its heavier than the other stuff.

If you store them properly they can last twenty+ years. The expiration date is an insurance thing that makes departments buy new shit.

However, after five years of use, they do show signs of wear. The harder you are on them the shorter they are useful.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Leftist tries to buy a gun at walmart to see out how easy it is.

I tried to buy a gun at Walmart twice, and roadblocks left me empty-handed both times
https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-gun-buying-review-virginia-store-2019-8

A lot of these leftist politicians know the things the are saying is a lie but they keep pushing myths and most people just believe it and don't look into it themselves. Like when dems say anyone can easily buy a gun online with no background check. The politicians know thats not true because they paid for the FBI to look into it and they debunked their own myth.

I think its because dems know things like background checks are popular so they like to claim background checks don't exist so they then get support for gun laws that are not popular.
 

the max

attempted murder? now honestly, what is that?
She went to the Walmart website and typed "gun" into the search bar. She was unable to find a store that sells guns for half a day. She was under the impression that there would be signs boasting of sales on guns in the store and mentions that she saw bicycles in the same store that sells guns. She didn't do any research on what the background check entailed and whether she needed to provide her correct address.

She's the type of person that shouldn't own a gun. She's not smart enough to buy one.

BTW, my googlefu says there's a Bass Pro ~35 minutes from Chesterfield, VA. They sell guns. I'd love to read about her escapades in a Bass Pro.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
She went to the Walmart website and typed "gun" into the search bar. She was unable to find a store that sells guns for half a day. She was under the impression that there would be signs boasting of sales on guns in the store and mentions that she saw bicycles in the same store that sells guns. She didn't do any research on what the background check entailed and whether she needed to provide her correct address.

She's the type of person that shouldn't own a gun. She's not smart enough to buy one.

BTW, my googlefu says there's a Bass Pro ~35 minutes from Chesterfield, VA. They sell guns. I'd love to read about her escapades in a Bass Pro.
That type of story is common, the flip side of that is some one that does a little more research and actually buys one, then pretends that it was so easy, I get a kick out of those also, what they fail to understand is that in the US you have to be found guilty of something before you’re guilty of a crime, they seem to think that very act of owning a gun is a crime.
There was some other assholes that tried to buy “assault rifles” and they were denied, I think the one guy had a criminal record that showed up so they denied the Sale, the other one was recognized by the seller and told to fuck off, and I think gabby Gifford’s husband caught shit because he bought one then gave it up to the cops to be destroyed and violated the straw purchasers law in the process
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Florida sheriff says 'Stand Your Ground' law prevents arrest in fatal shooting in parking spot dispute
By Robert Gearty | Fox News

28-year-old Markeis McGlockton was shot and killed in a dispute over a parking spot in Clearwater, Fla., Thursday. The sheriff who investigated said the shooter was justified under the state's "Stand Your Ground" law. (Fox 13 Tampa)
A Florida sheriff says the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law prevents the arrest of a man who fatally shot another man last week during an argument over a handicapped parking spot.
Markeis McGlockton, 28, shoved Michael Drejka, 47, to the ground during the argument Thursday at a Clearwater convenience store and then was shot and killed when Drejka, from a sitting position, pulled out a gun he legally owned and opened fire, shooting McGlockton once in the chest.

“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law," Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said, according to WFTS-TV. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”
Gualtieri announced Drejka had been cleared Friday. His decision led to a small protest at the store Saturday, Fox 13 Tampa reported. The State Attorney General could still make an arrest.
Fox 13 on Friday aired surveillance video showing the shooting and the moments leading up to it.
The station quoted Gualtieri as saying the facts were clear: McGlockton violently shoved Drejka to the ground and Drejka feared for his life. Because of that, he was covered under "Stand Your Ground.”
McGlockton, of Clearwater, shoved Drejka after he came out of the store and saw Drejka arguing with his girlfriend Britany Jacobs, 25, who was parked in the handicapped parking spot.
Drejka, also of Clearwater, confronted her because she didn’t have a permit to legally park there, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
McGlockton had gone inside to purchase snacks and sodas with their 5-year-old son, according to the paper. Jacobs was waiting for him in their car with their two other children, a 4-month-old and a 3-year-old.

Image from surveillance video showing fatal shooting after an argument over a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store in Clearwater, Fla. (Fox 13 Tampa)
Jacobs told WFTS that Drejka was getting away with murder.
“How is this 'Stand Your Ground' law?" she asked. "It’s not! Markeis pushed him, how does that justify a bullet?”
The Tampa Bay Times reported interviewing Rick Kelly, 31, who said that two months ago he was at the store and parked in the same handicapped spot. He said he saw Drejka walking around his vehicle checking to see if he had a permit, which he didn’t.
He said that during the ensuing argument Drejka threatened to shoot him.
"It’s a repeat,” Kelly told the paper. “It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken. He provoked that."
That doesn’t matter, Gualtieri told reporters when he announced that Drejka wouldn’t be charged.
“What’s relevant is not whether this guy’s a good guy, nice guy, or whether he’s a jerk, or whether he’s a thorn in people’s side and what he’s done, whether it’s three weeks ago, three months ago or three years ago,” the sheriff said. “What’s relevant and the only thing we can look at here is was he in fear of further bodily harm.”


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/2...n-fatal-shooting-in-parking-spot-dispute.html
The entire thing makes my blood boil, this is a complete cluster fuck, as usual, the media is twisting it into the usual “unarmed black man” narrative....

This is how I see it;
Angry white guy (with a gun) confronting an angry black woman (how dare you say anything other than praise)

Over her parking in a handicapped space (entitlement) angry black woman acts like angry (entitled) black woman.


Out comes angry black man (don’t make the black kids angry)


Angry black man immediately and possibly with out warning, (no audio) commits aggravated assault on the older (allegedly handicapped) armed white man.

Now assaulted, laying on the ground, and at a clear disadvantage, angry black woman exits the vehicle to continue the assault on the now defenseless and disoriented white man.

Split second decision time, end the assault with deadly force, or get your head kicked in and possibly killed with your own fire arm.

If you watch the video there is 3, possibly more, assailents present,
1. The now dead perpetrator of the original assault
2. The woman, who exited the vehicle within 2 seconds of the aggravated assault.
3 and a 3rd person, probably just a by stander, but, still advancing on the confrontation (he actually flees when the weapon is brandished)

The news is once again relentless saying “unarmed black man” and “he was fleeing” no, he took a single step back, and, the woman was still advancing, so was the third (probably innocent bystander) who actually fled when the weapon came out.
The shooter had no real choice, once he was on the ground, after the assault , he had no choice but to defend himself with deadly force, or, possibly be further assaulted. This isn’t a “stand your ground” this is self defense
The arm chair experts are infuriating, the news “experts” even more so because they are trying to compare this with the saint skittles case, saying that the zimzam used “stand your ground” which he didn’t, it was self defense. The stupid sheriff made the mistake of saying it was “stand your ground” when it isn’t, the shooter was already assaulted, laying on the ground and at a clear disadvantage and open to an even greater probability of bodily harm by now two (possibly 3) assalents...

I understand that the news media wants to push the racist, white, gun owner kills defenseless black man narrative, but wow... the mental gymnastics of his is astounding, also the one sided opinions being broadcast, GMA had a “legal expert on” (a leftist, black, former government legal type, woman) with leftist cry baby robin Roberts, basically calling this a murder (it’s technically a homicide there is a legal difference which they didn’t address, of course)

The “over a parking spot” is an over simplified and slanted view of the situation. If the rolls were reversed the narrative would be way different
If the dumb ass didn't want to get deaded, he shouldn't have assaulted the old bastard.

Of course, the leftists are attempting to spin it. They need a race war to hold on to their waning power base.
Spot on.

If you want to be Billy Badass, you need to be mindful of the consequences. The recently deceased did not.
Well, he was found guilty. Unreal.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-michael-drejka-second-amendment-guilty-manslaughter-mcglockton
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Of course he was. If the situation was reversed this would never have even resulted in an arrest.
The whole thing really did a 180. It started out with even the sheriff saying it's a clear stand your ground case and no arrest could be made. Then after the outcry from the "community" egged on by the media, prosecutors decided to file charges. Judge ruled sheriff wasn't going to testify at the trial, his statement was just a personal opinion.

The assailant was shot in the chest, but you have dummies down here saying he turned away and was retreating. In that case, he would have been shot in the back.
 
Andrew Branca over at LI does a pretty good breakdown of the case. I first came across his legal analysis during the Saint Trayvon case, and his book "The Law of Self Defense" is a good read if you carry.

VERDICT: Michael Drejka Guilty of Manslaughter

The case immediately became something of a media circus when the local sheriff mistakenly decided that Florida’s self-defense immunity law, §776.032, prohibited him from arresting Drejka for the killing. (I addressed this at length here: Law of Self Defense: VIDEO: Shove-Shoot Case Sheriff’s Statement.) Nevertheless, local prosecutors soon brought a charge of manslaughter against Drejka, and Drejka was found guilty of that charge by a Florida jury late last night.

Although sentencing isn’t scheduled until October 10, there seems little ambiguity in what that sentence is likely to be. Florida’s “10-20-Life” firearms sentencing statute, §775.087, mandates a 25-year-to-life sentence for a crime committed with a gun in which the gun is used to shoot and kill a victim. Drejka turned 49 earlier this month, so he would be 74 years of age before there is a possibility of his release from prison.
Drejka’s legal defense to the charge of manslaughter was, of course, self-defense. As such the only real legal issue in the case was whether, at the moment Drejka fired the fatal shot, he had a reasonable belief that McGlockton presented an imminent deadly force threat (meaning a threat reasonably capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury).

Note that this is a different question than whether Drejka was justified in presenting his gun in the first place. It’s quite possible for Drejka to have been legally justified in presenting the gun without being legally justified in firing the shot. I addressed this issue at length in this blog post the day after the shooting occurred: Law of Self Defense VIDEO: Just because it’s lawful to present the gun doesn’t mean it’s lawful to press the trigger (7/20/18)
In evaluating whether Drejka reasonably perceived an imminent deadly force threat from McGlockton at the time he fired the shot, it’s important to differentiate between facts and claims that are relevant to that question and those that are not. Frankly, it seemed to me in my quick review of the trial testimony and argument that there was an excessive emphasis on irrelevant matters.

To start, even the video itself is not decisive on the question of whether Drejka was seeing what the video camera was seeing, if only because of differences in position and angle. Also, the camera had not just been thrown violently to the ground, a physical experience that can affect perception. The reasonableness of Drejka’s perception of a threat is properly judged in the context of a person in his circumstances—that is, was it the reasonable perception of a person who had just been violently thrown to the ground?

Related, it doesn’t matter if McGlockton actually presented a deadly force threat to Drejka. Rather, it only matters if Drejka reasonably perceived such a threat.
The prosecution made much of the fact that McGlockton was, in effect, killed for trying to protect his girlfriend and children. Really, it doesn’t matter why McGlockton shoved Drejka. It is irrelevant whether McGlockton’s motivation for shoving Drejka was good (e.g., he was protecting his girlfriend and children) or bad (e.g., he was going to teach this obnoxious stranger a lesson he wouldn’t soon forget!), so long as McGlockton’s use of force was unlawful (which it clearly was). All that matters is whether Drejka could reasonably have perceived that he remained in imminent danger of a deadly force attack at the moment he fired the shot.

Conversely, much was made by the defense in this case of the fact that, apparently, McGlockton had relatively high levels of illegal drugs in his system at time. Frankly, this is also irrelevant under the facts of the case. McGlockton being intoxicated could be relevant if there was some dispute as to whether it was McGlockton or Drejka who was the initial physical aggressor in this case or if the drugs involved tended to induce violent behavior, but that issue was not in dispute. The video clearly shows that it was McGlockton who was the initial physical aggressor.

I’ve already mentioned that the reasonableness of Drejka’s perception of the threat must be assessed in the context of a person in his circumstances, specifically that of a person who has just been violently thrown to the ground. If being subject to that physical attack led him to make imperfect use-of-force decisions, the responsibility for those errors is not on Drejka, but on McGlockton who subjected Drejka to that force.

Unfortunately for the defense, even my quick review of the testimony from the state’s witnesses on the scene shortly after the shooting occurred undercut any claim that the impact of McGlockton’s attack had degraded Drejka’s ability to make sound use-of decisions.

Drejka complained of no meaningful injury at the time that could have reasonably affected decision making. There was, for example, no evidence of Drejka having struck his head on the ground as a result of being shoved there, there were no complaints by Drejka of being disoriented in any manner, Drejka never requested any meaningful medical attention, and so forth. So, while one might suppose that being knocked violently to the ground could readily cause imperfect use-of-force decision making, there appeared little evidence supporting such an inference, and considerable evidence lacking.

Absent such disorientation, it would be expected that Drejka’s perception of McGlockton’s conduct after presentation of the gun would accurately reflect what the surveillance camera appeared to capture—McGlockton realizing that he’d brought his fists to a gunfight, deciding that discretion was the better part of valor, and backing away from the fight.

This case is an excellent example of how tiny changes in the fact pattern could lead to drastically different legal outcomes. If McGlockton had made any apparent movement consistent with re-engaging Drejka, Drejka’s perception of an imminent attack would likely have been unquestionably reasonable. Even a mere shift of McGlockton’s body weight toward, rather than away from, Drejka might have been sufficient. Such evidence was not in the case, however.
Also extremely unhelpful to Drejka was his post-event interrogation by police, to which he voluntarily consented, without legal counsel present. In that interrogation a happily compliant Drejka, believing he’s just helping the police understand why his shooting of McGlockton was no problem, hardly an inconvenience, as the internet meme puts it, agrees to conduct a re-enactment of the shooting.

It goes without saying that any re-enactment in an enclosed space is going to be an imperfect reflection of what happened out in an open parking lot, and the differences between the two in this case were not advantageous to Drejka. I covered this interrogation at some length, along with video of the interrogation itself, here: Examining the Michael Drejka (Handicap Spot) Interrogation (10/28/18)

(Not relevant to Drejka’s guilt, but a useful cautionary tale, is the fact that one of the police officers who conducted this interrogation would later be arrested for arriving at a crime scene in his official vehicle while driving intoxicated: The Risks of Being Judged By Strangers.)

There may be circumstances in which it is prudent to speak briefly with police responding to the scene of your self-defense event, although the default position should always be to simply request legal counsel (and medical attention, if appropriate). There is never, however, any good reason to be speaking at length to anyone about the event without first consulting with legal counsel, and there is never, ever, ever any good reason to voluntarily engage with professional interrogators without your legal counsel actually present (if then).

Drejka’s past conduct involving claims that he had allegedly threatened strangers with shooting, under circumstances in which shooting would clearly have not been lawful, was also extremely damaging to his narrative of innocence. It created the impression (perhaps correctly) of a hothead who was quick to threaten to go to the gun when doing so was unlawful and unnecessary. State prosecutors presented at least two witnesses who testified to this effect, and the testimony was of a sort not readily subject to effective impeachment by the defense.

OK, folks, I may have more to say on this case later, but I’m short on time today, so this will have to wrap things up for this post. Go to it in the comments.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Pretty good, but in his original assessment of the sheriff's statement he doesn't seem to fully take into account Florida's stand your ground laws.
 

SKEPTIC

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
Andrew Branca over at LI does a pretty good breakdown of the case. I first came across his legal analysis during the Saint Trayvon case, and his book "The Law of Self Defense" is a good read if you carry.

VERDICT: Michael Drejka Guilty of Manslaughter
Great post. Thanks for the book recommendation, that sounds like a must read. I wasn't familiar with him or his prior work. Branca gives an excellent analysis of this case IMO.

Noteworthy excerpt:

This case is an excellent example of how tiny changes in the fact pattern could lead to drastically different legal outcomes. If McGlockton had made any apparent movement consistent with re-engaging Drejka, Drejka’s perception of an imminent attack would likely have been unquestionably reasonable. Even a mere shift of McGlockton’s body weight toward, rather than away from, Drejka might have been sufficient. Such evidence was not in the case, however.
It seems to me that the reasonable course of action for Drejka would have been to use brandishing plus verbal commands to attempt to enforce compliance. Based on the video evidence, it certainly appears that that was possible.

Note that this is a different question than whether Drejka was justified in presenting his gun in the first place. It’s quite possible for Drejka to have been legally justified in presenting the gun without being legally justified in firing the shot. I addressed this issue at length in this blog post the day after the shooting occurred: Law of Self Defense VIDEO: Just because it’s lawful to present the gun doesn’t mean it’s lawful to press the trigger (7/20/18)
This is an important distinction* both in a legal sense, and in a real world self defense sense.

*The distinction between brandishing and pulling the trigger.
 
Last edited:

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
I’m not shocked one bit by a guilty verdict, you can’t have people actually using a law as intended, this case was tried in the media and he was convicted by the court of public opinion, and that article proves it.

Also After reading that second article and taking into account that the shooter was stupid enough to talk to investigators with out a lawyer present it speaks volumes about his stupidity, or complete naively of how the legal system actually works, not how it’s supposed to work, in an “ideal world” he would never even been charged because it absolutely was a cut and dry case of self defense against multiple aggressors and, the entire exchange was captured clear as day on videotape.
If I was the defense I would have pressed the fact that at the time he was under attack by not one but two people, including pressing charges against the girlfriend as an accessory to the assault (or some such thing, make some shit up, but make her involved)
This guy’s best bet is to file some kind of appeal about misconduct or ineffective defense, did he ask for a change of venue? There’s no way that e should have been tried in penellis county
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Don't know about the change of venue.

He would have needed to have them move the trial to like north FL somewhere because the whole four-county Tampa Bay area plus the adjacent counties to the north/south and east were saturated with coverage.
 
Also After reading that second article and taking into account that the shooter was stupid enough to talk to investigators with out a lawyer present it speaks volumes about his stupidity, or complete naively of how the legal system actually works...
This is the biggest thing I took away. If, God forbid, I'm ever in a position to use deadly force, I'm invoking the second after the first LEO asks me a question. While I have the utmost respect for law enforcement, they don't speak for the DA and have no control over the political winds of (mis)fortune.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Don't know about the change of venue.

He would have needed to have them move the trial to like north FL somewhere because the whole four-county Tampa Bay area plus the adjacent counties to the north/south and east were saturated with coverage.
Yeah move it several counties away
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
This is the biggest thing I took away. If, God forbid, I'm ever in a position to use deadly force, I'm invoking the second after the first LEO asks me a question. While I have the utmost respect for law enforcement, they don't speak for the DA and have no control over the political winds of (mis)fortune.
Same here, sorry guys I ain’t saying shit till I get a lawyer
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
If this isn’t a problem I don’t know what is
It's coming. A mom takes her son to the range, everything about it is legal, kid gets fucked for a fucking video of him spending time with his mom. We are fucking doomed as a society and social media is absolutely culpable.
 
Top