Florida Shooters Network

This only reaffirms the 1st amendment is dead in this country. Its obvious you can't speak your peace in public without some thug taking your comment(s) the wrong way, if they do the thugs are allowed to beat on you and IF you attempt to defend yourself then you too can pick up a manslaughter charge. When the thug laid his hands on Drejka it became a violent criminal case and Drejka was justified in the shooting. IMHO they posted a guilty verdict as they didn't want the city of St.Petersburg burned to the ground.

Allme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:19 pm This only reaffirms the 1st amendment is dead in this country. Its obvious you can't speak your peace in public without some thug taking your comment(s) the wrong way, if they do the thugs are allowed to beat on you and IF you attempt to defend yourself then you too can pick up a manslaughter charge. When the thug laid his hands on Drejka it became a violent criminal case and Drejka was justified in the shooting. IMHO they posted a guilty verdict as they didn't want the city of St.Petersburg burned to the ground.

How does the 1st tie into this? That's a huge stretch. The 1st covers censorship via government, not by ghetto trash.

Skoll wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:37 pm

Allme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:19 pm This only reaffirms the 1st amendment is dead in this country. Its obvious you can't speak your peace in public without some thug taking your comment(s) the wrong way, if they do the thugs are allowed to beat on you and IF you attempt to defend yourself then you too can pick up a manslaughter charge. When the thug laid his hands on Drejka it became a violent criminal case and Drejka was justified in the shooting. IMHO they posted a guilty verdict as they didn't want the city of St.Petersburg burned to the ground.

How does the 1st tie into this? That's a huge stretch. The 1st covers censorship via government, not by ghetto trash.

I'm in agreement with Skoll.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And if you really want to get deep into it, here is a cool link!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

The 1st Amendment is a contract between YOU and the Gov't, not YOU and ME. If I don't like what you say, I can punch you in the nose.

Tenzing_Norgay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:06 pm The 1st Amendment is a contract between YOU and the Gov't, not YOU and ME. If I don't like what you say, I can punch you in the nose.

"If I don't like what you say, I can punch you in the nose."
Brilliant. And then with Stand Your Ground, the victim of your assault can pump 3 into your gut and you can be the Vice-Mayor of Cadavertown with Doucheclown McGlockton. Congratulations. Here's your sign.

This guy getting convicted may have delayed the clamoring for a revision/repeal to "stand your ground" legislation. If he had minded his own business, would never have been an issue....

For those who would have convicted, if this fellow, from the ground, kicked the pusher who proceeded to fall, hitting his head on the wall on the way down, leading to coma and then death, would that be grounds for conviction as well because he gave the finger to the guy at the start?

Of course de-escalation is the goal of every interaction, but let's just set that aside and take a moment here... This guy wasn't a vigilante gunning down jaywalkers. He was voicing his opinion on the rudeness of the able-bodied stealing parking from those needing assistance. Not exactly driving your Bentley to the soup kitchen, but same vain. But his altruistic motive is irrelevant, let's say he had a thing against orange shoes in public... Nothing gives the shopper the right to put his hands on and physically assault the other man.

The stepping back, walking away angle, that is up for discussion, but his motives and his use of firearm should not matter.

Waldo1 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:04 pm

Tenzing_Norgay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:06 pm The 1st Amendment is a contract between YOU and the Gov't, not YOU and ME. If I don't like what you say, I can punch you in the nose.

"If I don't like what you say, I can punch you in the nose."
Brilliant. And then with Stand Your Ground, the victim of your assault can pump 3 into your gut and you can be the Vice-Mayor of Cadavertown with Doucheclown McGlockton. Congratulations. Here's your sign.

Although my statement is a simplified example to explain the First Amendment to nimnods who don't understand it, that's exactly how the system works. No 1st Amendment violated. Here's your cookie.

Taco wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:34 am For those who would have convicted, if this fellow, from the ground, kicked the pusher who proceeded to fall, hitting his head on the wall on the way down, leading to coma and then death, would that be grounds for conviction as well because he gave the finger to the guy at the start?

I think he still would have been charged with manslaughter had he killed the guy with his fists/kick, etc. vs. a firearm.