Michael Drejka Update

[Knight]

Since you seem to see Drejka as some kind of champion for the rights of the handicap perhaps you should send him a nice big donation to help with his legal expenses. Give till it hurts.

You seem to be the champion of ignorant, uncaring people. And people wonder why there is so much violence in America

 

[Knight]

If someone took his spot he had a right. No harm was done to Dreika by the driver. The end result was death but not to him.
His personal annoyance does not justify the results.

Are you serious? Condoning illegal action by parking & then being attacked is OK with you? If that driver had parked legally there would be no death.

 

[Sunny]

If that driver had parked legally there would be no death.

Interesting logic there, Knight. So if some paranoid with an itchy trigger finger decides that someone passing him on the street gave him the evil eye, and shoots him dead, it's basically the fault of the guy who was shot? If he hadn't looked at him, there would be no death.

 

[Aunt Bea]

Are you serious? Condoning illegal action by parking & then being attacked is OK with you? If that driver had parked legally there would be no death.

Right or wrong it did set off a very tragic chain of events.

 

[Knight]

Interesting logic there, Knight. So if some paranoid with an itchy trigger finger decides that someone passing him on the street gave him the evil eye, and shoots him dead, it's basically the fault of the guy who was shot? If he hadn't looked at him, there would be no death.

Did you watch the video? Big difference between evil eye & being assaulted. I am not omnipotent I don't now what either man was thinking or was said in the few seconds between being assaulted & the fatal shot being fired.

Since you posed a hypothetical how about this.

What if the man that was shot approached Drejka & apologized for parking illegally. Then instead of assaulting him turned to his girlfriend and said this man is right, go park in one of those open non handicap spaces.

 

[Knight]

I'll be rooting for him to get shanked while he's in there.

I had to think about that post for awhile. How are you any better than Drejka? Drejka hasn't physically assaulted you, hasn't verbally irritated you, hasn't done anything to you except be in a video. Yet you want to see him harmed possibly die from being shanked. That degree of hatred you have for another human being you don't know personally is IMO far worse than what took place in that parking lot.

 

[Trade]

I had to think about that post for awhile. How are you any better than Drejka? Drejka hasn't physically assaulted you, hasn't verbally irritated you, hasn't done anything to you except be in a video. Yet you want to see him harmed possibly die from being shanked. That degree of hatred you have for another human being you don't know personally is IMO far worse than what took place in that parking lot.

 

[Butterfly]

(I’m probably going to hate myself for getting involved, but maybe I can clear up a misunderstanding.)

rgp———-I think you are misunderstanding Butterfly’s replies. When she speaks about “preponderance of the evidence” she is speaking about when and where it is used in its’ “legal” capacity.

The term, “preponderance of the evidence” is used during civil trials or generally, when one party is suing another party.

The term, “beyond a reasonable doubt” in its’ legal form is used during criminal trials.

I think what you are suggesting is that to reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” the jury must hear a “preponderance of the evidence.”

However, you or anyone else would probably never hear those words (preponderance of the evidence) during a criminal trial.

Semantics, it will drive a person crazy.

I’m done here.

Thank you, 911. That is precisely the point. A jury verdict in a criminal trial reached by a preponderance of the evidence would be thrown out so fast it would make your head swim.

 

[Butterfly]

verb
past tense: pondered; past participle: pondered

1. think about (something) carefully, especially before making a decision or reaching a conclusion.
   
   
   Evidence must be pondered/considered before any decision/judgement can be reached in any trial.

And my point all along has been that evidence should be protected period. IMO viewed by / made available to only the prosecution & defense attorneys , then entered into evidence at trial before the sworn jury.

In this case the video of the parking lot went viral.....and the judgement was made by the public [immediately] . This put undue pressure on the prosecutor & IMO he felt the need to bring charges against Drejaka . If the tape would have been held in security & not released to the public I believe the charges would have never been brought.

As I have said, we have a system [our legal system] in place. Let's get back to using it , & following it.

"thinking about" doesn't have anything to do with the use of preponderance of the evidence as a legal term.

 

[rgp]

"thinking about" doesn't have anything to do with the use of preponderance of the evidence as a legal term.

I never used it as a legal term, I used it as a conversation term.

Are you going to try & tell me /us that a jury does not consider evidence before reaching / coming to a decision/verdict in a criminal trial ??

I sure as hell wouldn't want you on a jury where my future was dependent on your decision.

 

[911]

I never used it as a legal term, I used it as a conversation term.

Are you going to try & tell me /us that a jury does not consider evidence before reaching / coming to a decision/verdict in a criminal trial ??

I sure as hell wouldn't want you on a jury where my future was dependent on your decision.

You are changing your story. All along, you have been discussing the trial by using the phrase “preponderance of the evidence.” Now, you have dropped the word “preponderance.” It’s facetious to think that people wouldn’t consider the evidence in any trial. You are taking this from a discussion to an argument and to even some degree are making it personal.

BTW, ponder and preponderance have 2 different meanings.

I don’t like it much when I find myself contradicting people, so I’m bowing out of this conversation.

 

[rgp]

You are changing your story. All along, you have been discussing the trial by using the phrase “preponderance of the evidence.” Now, you have dropped the word “preponderance.” It’s facetious to think that people wouldn’t consider the evidence in any trial. You are taking this from a discussion to an argument and to even some degree are making it personal.

BTW, ponder and preponderance have 2 different meanings.

I don’t like it much when I find myself contradicting people, so I’m bowing out of this conversation.

I am not changing anything.......My position all along has been that the video was evidence, and should not have been made public. Period

My other position has been that had the video not been made public , the prosecutions decision to charge/not charge, might have been different.

OK, perhaps i used the incorrect term ? Should have used ponder/consideration of evidence ..........

From Goggle

This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

This is the manner of consideration of the evidence I was noting......the most [convincing] evidence not being held secure, when it should have been.........Perhaps you misunderstood.

I'm still discussing , you ? How have I made it personal ?