Neither of those are illegal or criminal acts. Yet. Nor did they justify Drejka being attacked physically. The assailant's continuing unlawful behavior after his assault on Drejka to my knowledge was never questioned at trial.
I don't buy the media's assertion that the assailant was "backing away". "Backing away" is not the same thing as "running away", which is what you would do if someone threatened to shoot you. What would "backing away" accomplish? Nothing.
More likely, he was challenging Drejka or even goading him or getting into position to strike again. You'd have to be certifiably insane to fire at a retreating target and I don't believe for a second that is what happened.
The black assailant, a much larger and younger man, had the drug Ecstacy in his veins (found at autopsy). The assailant in fact committed assault and battery in addition to driving under the influence of a drug. Drejka, prior to being assaulted, posed no physical threat to anyone.
Drejka's legal defense was pure garbage. Incompetent. I hope this conviction gets vigorously appealed, as it needs to be. Otherwise we will end up with two sets of laws. One for them. And one for us.
> I don’t buy the media’s assertion that the assailant was “backing away”. “Backing away” is not the same thing as “running away”, which is what you would do if someone threatened to shoot you. <
It’s not just the media’s assertion that the man was backing away. It’s on the video.
And backing away would have been a perfectly normal thing to do. If I were arguing with a person maybe six feet away from me, and that person suddenly pulled a gun, my first instinct would be to back up. I don’t think anyone’s first instinct would be to turn and run. That might come after backing up.
I respect your position here. But I suspect we are way too far apart to change each other’s minds. So I’ll give you the last word, if you wish.
100% agree