# Justifiable use of deadly force or not?



## U2Edge

Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.


My opinion:

     Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.

      I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.

The article and video of the incident are in the link below:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

media link from youtube:


----------



## miketx

Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.


----------



## ozro

Let the court and a jury decide.


----------



## miketx

ozro said:


> Let the court and a jury decide.


How so? He didn't break any law.


----------



## U2Edge

miketx said:


> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.



So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Already a thread on this.
The guy was justified but I think he went to far.


----------



## U2Edge

ozro said:


> Let the court and a jury decide.



How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...


  The guy assaulted him.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.


----------



## ozro

miketx said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? He didn't break any law.
Click to expand...


There will be a trial.


----------



## U2Edge

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.



Did not know that. Is it in the form of a poll which this thread is?


----------



## miketx

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...

I think you are just trolling. Being in fear of your life is a legal state. You don't that getting violently shoved to the ground made him happy do you?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

U2Edge said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
Click to expand...


    The jury has no say in this matter.
It's state law.


----------



## miketx

ozro said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? He didn't break any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be a trial.
Click to expand...

Not guilty.


----------



## ozro

U2Edge said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
Click to expand...


I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> ........pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty.


----------



## U2Edge

HereWeGoAgain said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Click to expand...


Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?


----------



## ozro

HereWeGoAgain said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The jury has no say in this matter.
> It's state law.
Click to expand...


Huh?

Go back to high school. Everyone accused of a critical.e has the right to a jury trial.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

ozro said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
Click to expand...


  Very unlikely there'll be a trial.


----------



## U2Edge

OODA_Loop said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty.
Click to expand...


So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?


----------



## miketx

U2Edge said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
Click to expand...

He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

U2Edge said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
Click to expand...


    Whens the last time you saw a child kill out of anger?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

ozro said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The jury has no say in this matter.
> It's state law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Go back to high school. Everyone accused of a critical.e has the right to a jury trial.
Click to expand...


    He wont be charged.


----------



## ozro

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlikely there'll be a trial.
Click to expand...


There will. I  can tell you that from personal experience .


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?




So Doctor it is your sworn testimony and professional medical opinion that shoving a person down onto a paved surface can and will cause great bodily injury and you have personally seen patients die from head strikes against pavement from such acts and falls ?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

ozro said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlikely there'll be a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will. I  can tell you that from personal experience .
Click to expand...


   And what personal experience would that be and where did it play out?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Takeaway =  Don't put your hands on others.

Someone may punch your ticket.


----------



## ozro

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlikely there'll be a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will. I  can tell you that from personal experience .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what personal experience would that be and where did it play out?
Click to expand...


Apache County Az, Feb.2016.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

ozro said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unlikely there'll be a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will. I  can tell you that from personal experience .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what personal experience would that be and where did it play out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apache County Az, Feb.2016.
Click to expand...


   Than you need to look at Florida law.


----------



## U2Edge

miketx said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are just trolling. Being in fear of your life is a legal state. You don't that getting violently shoved to the ground made him happy do you?
Click to expand...


Really. How about being afraid because someone is yelling at you an appears aggressive? You think its legal to shoot someone if their just yelling at you because it makes you feel afraid? What if the person is AFRAID because of the way someone looks?


----------



## Thinker101

U2Edge said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
Click to expand...


Hmmm....I may have missed that part, did someone die?


----------



## ozro

Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Thinker101 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm....I may have missed that part, did someone die?
Click to expand...


  Yeah the dudes dead.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

ozro said:


> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system



  Stand your ground.
Case dismissed.


----------



## OODA_Loop

OODA_Loop said:


> So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?



Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.


----------



## U2Edge

ozro said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
Click to expand...


The video, that is part of the new article shows the ENTIRE incident. There are no other details that are relevant. Its all there. The jury will be making their decision on the video evidence which you can view from the article. The youtube link does not show the whole incident, but the news article has video that does.


----------



## jon_berzerk

justified 

keep your hands to yourself


----------



## ozro

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
Click to expand...


In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.


----------



## OODA_Loop

ozro said:


> Go back to high school. Everyone accused of a critical.e has the right to a jury trial.



You don't even know how wrong you are and are condescending to boot.

Sorry your girl lost.


----------



## JoeMoma

I would not be surprised if there is a Trial.  Why?  George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin!


----------



## night_son

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:




On one hand, the shooter was armed_ and_ looking for trouble. On the other, the shooting victim shoved him with enough force to possibly break his sternum. I have to agree with the OP on the grounds that the assault did not continue. However, would the assault have continued had the shooter not drawn his firearm? On the surface it seem at least to me, the situation had stabilized after the weapon was drawn. An interesting case to follow.


----------



## U2Edge

OODA_Loop said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.
Click to expand...


So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?


----------



## ozro

U2Edge said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video, that is part of the new article shows the ENTIRE incident. There are no other details that are relevant. Its all there. The jury will be making their decision on the video evidence which you can view from the article. The youtube link does not show the whole incident, but the news article has video that does.
Click to expand...


So you would be in favor of no trial, got it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


You’re entitled to your opinion but it’s legally irrelevant and factually wrong.  

Pursuant to Florida law the shooting was lawful – whether ‘justified’ or not is also irrelevant; Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require ‘justification,’ all that’s required is for the shooter to have a reasonable fear that his well-being or life was in jeopardy.  

In another state the same use of deadly force might be unlawful.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

ozro said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
Click to expand...


  Not necessarily.
The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> How about being afraid because someone is yelling at you an appears aggressive? You think its legal to shoot someone if their just yelling at you because it makes you feel afraid? What if the person is AFRAID because of the way someone looks?



Cant shoot in FL


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

JoeMoma said:


> I would not be surprised if there is a Trial.  Why?  George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin!



  There was no video in that case.


----------



## ozro

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
Click to expand...


And, a court will decide that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

U2Edge said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?
Click to expand...


  Since when do five year olds pack heat?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ozro said:


> Let the court and a jury decide.



There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.


----------



## U2Edge

Thinker101 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm....I may have missed that part, did someone die?
Click to expand...


Yes, the attacker after pushing the man to the ground was shot by the man on the ground and died in the story in front of his five year old son. The attacker BACKED away once the man on the ground pulled out his gun.


----------



## kaz

miketx said:


> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.



Didn't watch the video, did you?  I'm a strong second amendment supporter, but that was just murder.   There was no rational self defense.  I'd call it first degree murder given that the guy clearly was trying to create that exact situation


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?



Reasonable people do not view children pushing on yards = threat of great bodily harm or death.

Children cant lawfully posses firearms.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

ozro said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
Click to expand...


   The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
Click to expand...


I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario


----------



## U2Edge

HereWeGoAgain said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when do five year olds pack heat?
Click to expand...


13 year old's often do. Sometimes its easy to take Daddy's gun to school for show and tell as well as other purposes.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...

Correct.

And that one had reason to be afraid.

Again, this pertains solely to Florida and other states with similar SYG doctrine.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

U2Edge said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm....I may have missed that part, did someone die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the attacker after pushing the man to the ground was shot by the man on the ground and died in the story in front of his five year old son. The attacker BACKED away once the man on the ground pulled out his gun.
Click to expand...


  It doesnt matter what you believe.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

U2Edge said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when do five year olds pack heat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 13 year old's often do. Sometimes its easy to take Daddy's gun to school for show and tell as well as other purposes.
Click to expand...


  But thats not what happened.


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> Yes, the attacker after pushing the man to the ground was shot by the man on the ground and died in the story in front of his five year old son. The attacker BACKED away once the man on the ground pulled out his gun.



Son part irrelevent.

You have some traction on the backing part.   Slightly.

But it was not a retreat and you dont know what was said .... dude on ground was reasonable at the time to conclude attack would continue

Play stupid games win stupid prizes


----------



## miketx

kaz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't watch the video, did you?  I'm a strong second amendment supporter, but that was just murder.   There was no rational self defense.  I'd call it first degree murder given that the guy clearly was trying to create that exact situation
Click to expand...

Of course I watched the video. We cannot hear what was said if anything but it happened fast. I don't think the the shooter was wrong. Did he have to shoot him? We don't know, maybe not, but what we do know is that he did shoot him after being violently knocked to the ground. If that had not happened, he would not have gotten shot. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
> If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.  There was no reasonable fear.  Did you watch the video?  I'm a strong believer in stand your ground.  After the guy shoved him, he was well away from the shooter making no threatening gestures.  That isn't stand your ground.

Not to mention that the shooter kept trying to stage that scenario.  He wanted to kill someone


----------



## ozro

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
> If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.
Click to expand...


Most DA's will bring a case like this to court.
Politics being what it is, they have to cover their ass.


----------



## JoeMoma

I voted no, I do not believe it was a justifiable use of force.  That being said, legally it may be a difficult call to make.  If the guy had simply sat their on the ground, it looks like the confrontation would have been over, but there is no way of knowing that for certain.


----------



## U2Edge

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re entitled to your opinion but it’s legally irrelevant and factually wrong.
> 
> Pursuant to Florida law the shooting was lawful – whether ‘justified’ or not is also irrelevant; Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require ‘justification,’ all that’s required is for the shooter to have a reasonable fear that his well-being or life was in jeopardy.
> 
> In another state the same use of deadly force might be unlawful.
Click to expand...


I did not ask about Florida state law. I asked YOU if you think this is a justifiable use of force, regardless of state and federal laws. What do YOU think when you see this. Is it right or wrong?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
Click to expand...


  I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.


----------



## G.T.

Murder.


----------



## kaz

miketx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't watch the video, did you?  I'm a strong second amendment supporter, but that was just murder.   There was no rational self defense.  I'd call it first degree murder given that the guy clearly was trying to create that exact situation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I watched the video. We cannot hear what was said if anything but it happened fast. I don't think the the shooter was wrong. Did he have to shoot him? We don't know, maybe not, but what we do know is that he did shoot him after being violently knocked to the ground. If that had not happened, he would not have gotten shot. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
Click to expand...


Bull shit.  When he shot him, the man was not threatening him


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
Click to expand...


Again from the video.  Did you listen to the store owner saying he was repeatedly doing that?

He keeps verbally assaulting people over the same handycap parking spot while armed and ready to shoot.  That's wanting something to happen


----------



## miketx

kaz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't watch the video, did you?  I'm a strong second amendment supporter, but that was just murder.   There was no rational self defense.  I'd call it first degree murder given that the guy clearly was trying to create that exact situation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I watched the video. We cannot hear what was said if anything but it happened fast. I don't think the the shooter was wrong. Did he have to shoot him? We don't know, maybe not, but what we do know is that he did shoot him after being violently knocked to the ground. If that had not happened, he would not have gotten shot. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  When he shot him, the man was not threatening him
Click to expand...

He was close enough too him to still be a threat.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

U2Edge said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
Click to expand...

False comparison fallacy.

A private citizen using deadly force to defend himself isn’t ‘punishment’ – government is not involved, there is no due process requirement.


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> 13 year old's often do. Sometimes its easy to take Daddy's gun to school for show and tell as well as other purposes.



So show me how this relates to lawful self-defense.


----------



## G.T.

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
Click to expand...

The store owner's testimony says as much.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
> If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  There was no reasonable fear.  Did you watch the video?  I'm a strong believer in stand your ground.  After the guy shoved him, he was well away from the shooter making no threatening gestures.  That isn't stand your ground.
> 
> Not to mention that the shooter kept trying to stage that scenario.  He wanted to kill someone
Click to expand...


  You dont know what was said and you dont know that he staged it.
  For all you know the guy said he was going to kill him.


----------



## sealybobo

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


Be careful who you push for one.

Don’t start fights when you have a ccw

That guy was not threatening his life. He’s guilty of murder


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

G.T. said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
Click to expand...


  I didnt see that.
I'll go back and take another gander.


----------



## Marion Morrison

He'll go for manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder.

Not justified, shooter will go to prison.

I know at least 5 people have gone for 2nd degree murder/manslaughter because turd robbers 

invaded their house for drugs and they had to shoot them. It is what it is.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are just trolling. Being in fear of your life is a legal state. You don't that getting violently shoved to the ground made him happy do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really. How about being afraid because someone is yelling at you an appears aggressive? You think its legal to shoot someone if their just yelling at you because it makes you feel afraid? What if the person is AFRAID because of the way someone looks?
Click to expand...

Straw man fallacy.

That’s not what occurred in this incident.


----------



## miketx

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again from the video.  Did you listen to the store owner saying he was repeatedly doing that?
> 
> He keeps verbally assaulting people over the same handycap parking spot while armed and ready to shoot.  That's wanting something to happen
Click to expand...

No I didn't see that. Maybe you are correct. I don't know.


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> I did not ask about Florida state law. I asked YOU if you think this is a justifiable use of force, regardless of state and federal laws. What do YOU think when you see this. Is it right or wrong?



I don't interact much or start problems with people when I do.   I wouldn't likely find myself in this situation.

If you go hands on I will defend myself including and up to punching your ticket.

Ill bet this was a .380


----------



## sealybobo

miketx said:


> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.


So whatever the guy on the ground says is law?

Watch the tape he’s clearly guilty. The man wasn’t coming forward. If I were on that jury anyways


----------



## kaz

miketx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't watch the video, did you?  I'm a strong second amendment supporter, but that was just murder.   There was no rational self defense.  I'd call it first degree murder given that the guy clearly was trying to create that exact situation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I watched the video. We cannot hear what was said if anything but it happened fast. I don't think the the shooter was wrong. Did he have to shoot him? We don't know, maybe not, but what we do know is that he did shoot him after being violently knocked to the ground. If that had not happened, he would not have gotten shot. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
Click to expand...


Not really.  I believe in guns for self defense, not to turn the country into the wild west.

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

An armed man keeps harassing people over the same parking spot.  He's armed, angry and on a cause.  And it's not his store, he's just adopted it to fight with people who park in that spot.  And obviously he's aiming to kill.

You tell me how that's going to end any other way.  You're seriously defending someone who wanted to kill someone and worked to make it happen?  He created a scenario that would not end any other way than someone getting killed


----------



## sealybobo

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


I say he’s guilty but a big young man can not be putting his hands on people. Everyone before him were just using their words. He escalated the incident


----------



## U2Edge

OODA_Loop said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable people do not view children pushing on yards = threat of great bodily harm or death.
> 
> Children cant lawfully posses firearms.
Click to expand...


Fact, this could happen on a play ground because there are in fact children as big as the two men involved in this incident. In fact, you could even have a greater difference in size between attacker and victim on the play ground making the risk of death greater than this situation. 

Yes, children can't lawfully posses firearms, but that is irrelevant to whether their use of a firearm in a given situation is justified. Being pushed to the ground on the play ground, definitely not justified. Being dragged into a car by pedophile, justified.


----------



## G.T.

Tough guys who think this is justifiable should have their gun rights removed.

This guy was a threat to somebody's wife, and the store owner says he causes conflict all of the time and this particular time, the wife appeared so threatened that a bystander came into the store to report it..

the husband then rightfully pushed the threat away from the wife

then took 2 to 3 paces backwards


and was shot.


Its murder, and if youre unable to determine as much then youre a clear and present danger to society. Probably need a mental health background check, as well.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.



Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

G.T. said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
Click to expand...


  Just went back and read the story again....
I didnt see anything like you're stating.
   Some other link I'm missing?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ozro said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
Click to expand...

Again, there won’t be any trial.

From a local news source:

“Drejka is a legal concealed weapons permit holder and *will not be charged* because of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.”

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-pinellas/video-shows-deadly-shooting-over-parking-spot-at-clearwater-convenience-store


----------



## G.T.

HereWeGoAgain said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> This guy was a threat to somebody's wife, and the store owner says he causes conflict all of the time and this particular time, the wife appeared so threatened that a bystander came into the store to report it..



Yet she left the safety of the car after the attack ?   Why to escalate / continue it ?


----------



## JoeMoma

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
Click to expand...

The news story said that the guy often argued with people at the store that parked in the handicap parking.  It wasn't the first time.

I'm a supporter of concealed carry, but people that do so should be extra responsible to not be instigating confrontations.


----------



## kaz

miketx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps verbally assaulting people over the same handycap parking spot while armed and ready to shoot.  That's wanting something to happen
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't see that. Maybe you are correct. I don't know.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

U2Edge said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
Click to expand...


1st off, that isn't the complete video.  With that said, if all that guy did was push him to the ground, he's guilty of assault & battery... no need to shoot him.


----------



## kaz

JoeMoma said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The news story said that the guy often argued with people at the store that parked in the handicap parking.  It wasn't the first time.
> 
> I'm a supporter of concealed carry, but people that do so should be extra responsible to not be instigating confrontations.
Click to expand...


That's exactly it.  That's my issue.  Had he been minding his own business and been confronted, then I would have a totally different opinion.  Carrying a gun and repeatedly initiating hostility is not consistent with my pro-second amendment views


----------



## OODA_Loop

U2Edge said:


> .
> 
> Yes, children can't lawfully posses firearms, but that is irrelevant to whether their use of a firearm in a given situation is justified. Being pushed to the ground on the play ground, definitely not justified. Being dragged into a car by pedophile, justified.



I child could not claim SYG protection in FL under any circumstance carrying concealed in a public space.


----------



## G.T.

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy was a threat to somebody's wife, and the store owner says he causes conflict all of the time and this particular time, the wife appeared so threatened that a bystander came into the store to report it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet she left the safety of the car after the attack ?   Why to escalate / continue it ?
Click to expand...

Its a responsible gun owner's responsibility to not be escalating situations ~ only an irresponsible child-minded dope with a gun takes it so non-seriously.....and because of that, a man...a human life was ended BACKING AWAY, after he pushed someone down who was a threat to his WIFE.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
Click to expand...


What does that mean?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

G.T. said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.
Click to expand...


  Where's the interview from the store clerk?

The video of the shooting pretty much clears the shooter.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## OODA_Loop

Soggy in NOLA said:


> 1st off, that isn't the complete video.  With that said, if all that guy did was push him to the ground, he's guilty of assault & battery... no need to shoot him.




Assault and battery which could reasonably result in great bodily injury or death,

Accused groper dies after fight in downtown Austin


----------



## G.T.

HereWeGoAgain said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the interview from the store clerk?
> 
> The video of the shooting pretty much clears the shooter.
Click to expand...

Its in the same video, wtf

And the shooter is cleared? The pushER was walking BACKWARDS.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the interview from the store clerk?
> 
> The video of the shooting pretty much clears the shooter.
Click to expand...


The one minute mark of the video.  It's like two minutes long, how do you keep not finding it?


----------



## ozro

I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse. I think I need to get off here, my personal experience still disturbs me, so I am going to go work it off. 

I think this case needs to be decided by a court.

What I can tell you for certain is that if you find yourself in a position that forces you to use deadly force, you will be victimized 3 times:
Being the victim of the criminal you shot
Being the victim of the legal process you will be subjected to
And
The victim of your own conscience.

Have a great day


----------



## Uncensored2008

miketx said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? He didn't break any law.
Click to expand...


The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st off, that isn't the complete video.  With that said, if all that guy did was push him to the ground, he's guilty of assault & battery... no need to shoot him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assault and battery which could reasonably result in great bodily injury or death,
> 
> Accused groper dies after fight in downtown Austin
Click to expand...


I'd be pissed if some crazy schmuck was yelling at my wife when I came out of a store.  It's a threatening situation


----------



## G.T.

Uncensored2008 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? He didn't break any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but if a man was such a threat to my wife that a bystander thought to come tell a store clerk...then i walked outside and he was screaming in her face...

a simple push is the least of his worries

Im not sure where testicles went but you dont attack women and you dont wish death on men protecting their women from a known and problematic LOON


----------



## kaz

ozro said:


> I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse



Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


  Found it.
Not sure if that'll change anything.
   The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
Click to expand...



He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when do five year olds pack heat?
Click to expand...



i thought why even bother to respond to such a ridiculous post


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
Click to expand...


  Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.


----------



## jon_berzerk

if the da has any concerns 

it will be up to a grand jury to decide 

if charges are supportable


----------



## OODA_Loop

Uncensored2008 said:


> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.



Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Found it.
> Not sure if that'll change anything.
> The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.
Click to expand...


So you heard the guy was repeatedly confronting people over a parking space (that wasn't his), was angry and hostile, and you think that doesn't matter?  Obviously the guy created a loop that would eventually end in someone being dead.

And you defend that?  Seriously?  Guns are to be used to prevent shootings if at all possible and only be used if necessary.  And yet you're defending a situation that was guaranteed to end in someone being killed.

That's not what gun rights are about, it just isn't


----------



## JoeMoma

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
Click to expand...


Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  I understood what you said now.

However, he initiated the aggression.  A guy goes in the store and you start screaming at his woman, and it's not your store.  You think wow, this isn't initiating hostility?  Really?   Then he shot to kill someone who wasn't at that time threatening him.  Obviously it was going to end in a death.

If you set up a scenario that will logically end in a death and repeat that scenario until it does, the term for that is premeditated murder


----------



## G.T.

also not to mention any grown man so intetested in defense should walk his fat ass to a gym and learn to square the fuck up


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Found it.
> Not sure if that'll change anything.
> The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you heard the guy was repeatedly confronting people over a parking space (that wasn't his), was angry and hostile, and you think that doesn't matter?  Obviously the guy created a loop that would eventually end in someone being dead.
> 
> And you defend that?  Seriously?  Guns are to be used to prevent shootings if at all possible and only be used if necessary.  And yet you're defending a situation that was guaranteed to end in someone being killed.
> 
> That's not what gun rights are about, it just isn't
Click to expand...


    Oh I saw it.
But he obviously never pulled his gun before he was attacked.

   Talking is one thing attacking is another.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

night_son said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand, the shooter was armed_ and_ looking for trouble. On the other, the shooting victim shoved him with enough force to possibly break his sternum. I have to agree with the OP on the grounds that the assault did not continue. However, would the assault have continued had the shooter not drawn his firearm? On the surface it seem at least to me, the situation had stabilized after the weapon was drawn. An interesting case to follow.
Click to expand...

In which case you’re just as wrong as the OP.

Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require the attack to be ‘ongoing’; indeed, the theory of the law is that one may use deadly force to stop an attack, before the assailant has an opportunity to inflict bodily harm or kill the person being attacked.

Now, had McGlockton turned and started running from the incident and Drejka then shot McGlockton, the shooting would likely not have met SYG requirements.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

JoeMoma said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?
Click to expand...


   I'd say so.
But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
  People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
  Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OODA_Loop said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
Click to expand...



The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.


----------



## miketx

Uncensored2008 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
Click to expand...

Right after he knocked you down it would.


----------



## Marion Morrison

In b4 the shooter gets a green card from Pam Bondi.


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.




They could be as a prelude to an already initiated attack justifying SYG


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
Click to expand...


Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."  

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%


----------



## Uncensored2008

miketx said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right after he knocked you down it would.
Click to expand...


IF the man had shot as soon as he was knocked down I would agree. But he didn't, he brandished the weapon which had the effect of causing the assailant to flee. He then shot the fleeing assailant.

It will be up to a jury to decide, but I don't find this justifiable.


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Found it.
> Not sure if that'll change anything.
> The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you heard the guy was repeatedly confronting people over a parking space (that wasn't his), was angry and hostile, and you think that doesn't matter?  Obviously the guy created a loop that would eventually end in someone being dead.
> 
> And you defend that?  Seriously?  Guns are to be used to prevent shootings if at all possible and only be used if necessary.  And yet you're defending a situation that was guaranteed to end in someone being killed.
> 
> That's not what gun rights are about, it just isn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I saw it.
> But he obviously never pulled his gun before he was attacked.
> 
> Talking is one thing attacking is another.
Click to expand...


there are other witnesses to the incident besides the video 

who knows what else was going on at the time


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
Click to expand...

And the State Attorney’s Office isn’t going to pursue the matter absent charges filed against Drejka.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say so.
> But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
> People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
> Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.
Click to expand...


No one is saying he had a "right" to attack him.

Look man, the shooter initiated the aggression.  Yelling a woman in a parking lot is aggression.  

If you have a gun, don't initiate aggression.

Would you teach your children anything else?  I grew up in the midwest where guns are common.  That's the kind of thing our parents taught us when they taught us to use guns safely


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Uncensored2008 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
Click to expand...


  Looks black to me.


----------



## night_son

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> night_son said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand, the shooter was armed_ and_ looking for trouble. On the other, the shooting victim shoved him with enough force to possibly break his sternum. I have to agree with the OP on the grounds that the assault did not continue. However, would the assault have continued had the shooter not drawn his firearm? On the surface it seem at least to me, the situation had stabilized after the weapon was drawn. An interesting case to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which case you’re just as wrong as the OP.
> 
> Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require the attack to be ‘ongoing’; indeed, the theory of the law is that one may use deadly force to stop an attack, before the assailant has an opportunity to inflict bodily harm or kill the person being attacked.
> 
> Now, had McGlockton turned and started running from the incident and Drejka then shot McGlockton, the shooting would likely not have met SYG requirements.
Click to expand...


Sometimes the messenger obstructs the message.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%




Challenging someone for parking actions verbally is a lawful act.   Lawful with a gun if you have a CCW.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the State Attorney’s Office isn’t going to pursue the matter absent charges filed against Drejka.
Click to expand...


The attorney won't pursue the case without charges.  That seems like an obvious and empty statement


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could be as a prelude to an already initiated attack justifying SYG
Click to expand...


  The "victim" was actually black.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ozro said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
> If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most DA's will bring a case like this to court.
> Politics being what it is, they have to cover their ass.
Click to expand...

lol

Not in Florida - not after the Zimmerman debacle.


----------



## JoeMoma

HereWeGoAgain said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say so.
> But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
> People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
> Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.
Click to expand...

Both men did things they didn't have the right to do IMO.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Uncensored2008 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
Click to expand...


That depends. If it's like "I'm a kill ya" well.. 


I had a guy one day, when I was out walking my dog, tell me he was gonna shoot my dog and beat my ass.

I was cornered, I said "What'd you say?" He said "I'm gonna" CLICK! STFU punk!

I beat his ass. Then his big old brother grabbed me up in a full Nelson and he hit me with a ring. As he was doing so, I stomped on his brother's toe, then grabbed his arm, rolled backwards and clacked their heads together and ran.

Their skulls were cracked. I wasn't bothering anybody, they should not have fucked with me.

I may have a scar above my eye, but I ain't got no head fractures.

I boxed his ears when he grabbed me in a bearhug, too. 

Then punched him a few times in the face.


----------



## whitehall

How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenging someone for parking actions verbally is a lawful act.   Lawful with a gun if you have a CCW.
Click to expand...


That doesn't contradict what I said.

So you think initiating hostility with a gun is OK.

You think repeatedly initiating hostility with a gun is OK.

You think repeatedly initiating hostility with a gun on someone else's property is OK.

I believe in the second amendment for self defense.  You're arguing the second justifies murdering people with staged scenarios where you initiate the hostility.

There's no overlap there


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
Click to expand...


   Thats the thing though.
The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
    The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
   And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?


----------



## kaz

JoeMoma said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say so.
> But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
> People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
> Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both men did things they didn't have the right to do IMO.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the level was completely different.

If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> [
> 
> So you think initiating hostility with a gun is OK.


You build your argument on this fallacy.

He didn't* initiate *with a gun,

The gun was an unknown in all other interactions until he felt in fear of great bodily injury.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks black to me.
Click to expand...



Maybe, the video is not very good.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say so.
> But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
> People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
> Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is saying he had a "right" to attack him.
> 
> Look man, the shooter initiated the aggression.  Yelling a woman in a parking lot is aggression.
> 
> If you have a gun, don't initiate aggression.
> 
> Would you teach your children anything else?  I grew up in the midwest where guns are common.  That's the kind of thing our parents taught us when they taught us to use guns safely
Click to expand...


  I dont think the guy should have shot him in my opinion.
But all you can go by is the law.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?



She was in the car.....my wife would of had the window up - hand on her Glock 43.

I would have slid into the passenger seat ready to draw my Glock 19 if necessary. 

Back out.  Leave,


----------



## Kosh

The OP asks the wrong question, self defense is always justified.

You have to prove intent. did the man with the gun intent to kill the other person.

Intent is always been hard to prove. I do not believe the man intended to kill anyone.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
Click to expand...


That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.

That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about


----------



## Kosh

whitehall said:


> How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.



Because this about the son that Obama never had.


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
Click to expand...


who knows what actually led up to this 

could have been brewing for a long time


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was in the car.....my wife would of had the window up - hand on her Glock 43.
> 
> I would have slid into the passenger seat ready to draw my Glock 19 if necessary.
> 
> Back out.  Leave,
Click to expand...


I agree, and it doesn't contradict anything I said.

The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill.  That's murder


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say so.
> But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
> People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
> Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both men did things they didn't have the right to do IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the level was completely different.
> 
> If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?
Click to expand...


   I do know my first reaction wouldnt be to attack the guy.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.




Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.

Zimmerman is another example.  Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.

He was lawful though.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Uncensored2008 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks black to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, the video is not very good.
Click to expand...


  He's black alright.


----------



## JoeMoma

Marion Morrison said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends. If it's like "I'm a kill ya" well..
> 
> 
> I had a guy one day, when I was out walking my dog, tell me he was gonna shoot my dog and beat my ass.
> 
> I was cornered, I said "What'd you say?" He said "I'm gonna" CLICK! STFU punk!
> 
> I beat his ass. Then his big old brother grabbed me up in a full Nelson and he hit me with a ring. As he was doing so, I stomped on his brother's toe, then grabbed his arm, rolled backwards and clacked their heads together and ran.
> 
> Their skulls were cracked. I wasn't bothering anybody, they should not have fucked with me.
> 
> I may have a scar above my eye, but I ain't got no head fractures.
> 
> I boxed his ears when he grabbed me in a bearhug, too.
> 
> Then punched him a few times in the face.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether what you say is true or not, anyone can be a bad ass on a message board.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
> If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most DA's will bring a case like this to court.
> Politics being what it is, they have to cover their ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> Not in Florida - not after the Zimmerman debacle.
Click to expand...


The prosecutor fucked up in Florida by overreaching.  That was a completely different scenario.  He'd probably have gotten a conviction for manslaughter.  But second degree murder?  There was no basis for that.  And the prosecutor played the game of forcing the jury to pick between second and not guilty.  It was a stupid gamble for a case where second wasn't remotely proven


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill.  That's murder



The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression.   Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.
> 
> Zimmerman is another example.  Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.
> 
> He was lawful though.
Click to expand...


Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead.  I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.

The guy wanted to kill someone.  And he did.  That isn't what the second is about


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
Click to expand...


   If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
  That doesnt ad up.

    Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

U2Edge said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re entitled to your opinion but it’s legally irrelevant and factually wrong.
> 
> Pursuant to Florida law the shooting was lawful – whether ‘justified’ or not is also irrelevant; Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require ‘justification,’ all that’s required is for the shooter to have a reasonable fear that his well-being or life was in jeopardy.
> 
> In another state the same use of deadly force might be unlawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ask about Florida state law. I asked YOU if you think this is a justifiable use of force, regardless of state and federal laws. What do YOU think when you see this. Is it right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Then you should have posted in the Religion and Ethics forum without reference to the specific incident occurring in a particular state.

Instead you posted in the Politics forum about a specific incident that occurred in Florida.

Consequently, what one ‘thinks’ or ‘believes’ is irrelevant – all that matters is the law.

You also make the mistake of confusing and conflating the law with ethical and moral beliefs, such as whether or not the shooting was ‘justified’ – where the shooting can be justified legally but not morally.

Any loss of life is sad and tragic, particularly in a meaningless, ridiculous, pointless situation such as this.

Common sense and self-preservation dictate that one shouldn’t use physical force against another concerning something as trivial as a parking spot, it will likely get you arrested – and in Florida, dead – whether one considers it ‘justified’ or ‘moral’ or not.


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.
> 
> Zimmerman is another example.  Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.
> 
> He was lawful though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead.  I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.
> 
> The guy wanted to kill someone.  And he did.  That isn't what the second is about
Click to expand...



*The guy wanted to kill someone. *

got any evidence of that 

does the da have any evidence of that


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill.  That's murder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression.   Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.
Click to expand...


Duh.  The victim didn't initiate lethal aggression either.  Only the shooter did that.

Step 1:  You initiate aggression

Step 2:  You get aggression back

Step 3:  You shoot to kill

You keep repeating that scenario until step 2 happens and you have the dead body you wanted


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.
> 
> Zimmerman is another example.  Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.
> 
> He was lawful though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead.  I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.
> 
> The guy wanted to kill someone.  And he did.  That isn't what the second is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The guy wanted to kill someone. *
> 
> got any evidence of that
> 
> does the da have any evidence of that
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill.  That's murder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression.   Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh.  The victim didn't initiate lethal aggression either.  Only the shooter did that.
> 
> Step 1:  You initiate aggression
> 
> Step 2:  You get aggression back
> 
> Step 3:  You shoot to kill
> 
> You keep repeating that scenario until step 2 happens and you have the dead body you wanted
Click to expand...


  You have to prove that that was his intention.


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.
> 
> Zimmerman is another example.  Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.
> 
> He was lawful though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead.  I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.
> 
> The guy wanted to kill someone.  And he did.  That isn't what the second is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The guy wanted to kill someone. *
> 
> got any evidence of that
> 
> does the da have any evidence of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...



so what where is the  proof he "wanted to kill someone"


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks black to me.
Click to expand...


He's clearly black


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill.  That's murder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression.   Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh.  The victim didn't initiate lethal aggression either.  Only the shooter did that.
> 
> Step 1:  You initiate aggression
> 
> Step 2:  You get aggression back
> 
> Step 3:  You shoot to kill
> 
> You keep repeating that scenario until step 2 happens and you have the dead body you wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to prove that that was his intention.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## JoeMoma

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
Click to expand...


I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Andylusion

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...


So the answer to the question is that it is neither. 

It is neither murder, nor justified.

It's one of those miserable ambiguous cases, where it isn't clear cut either way.

The man clearly was not engaged in murder, because he had no intention of killing anyone up to the point where he was attacked.

However, at the time of the shooting, the attacker had no intention of continuing violence.  He only pushed the man away from his wife.    So it was not a justified defense... but the shooter was not trying to engage in murder.  He was responding to being provoked.

I hate cases like these, because both sides have a valid argument.

All that said, and it is all true.....  the person that caused the problem was the guy who parked illegal in a handicap spot.    Why do people break the law, and then freak out when people call them on it?    They should have simply moved their car.

All of this could have been avoided, if they simply followed the rules.

Teach your kids to follow the rules, and they won't end up a "victim" when they break the rules.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

kaz said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?
Click to expand...

No, it’s rightists who always spoil a civil discussion by making it partisan, this post being one of many examples.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

JoeMoma said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
Click to expand...


  Not in this case.
The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
    Had he been all up in her face I could see it.


----------



## Marion Morrison

A location the shooter will soon become familiar with: Lake Butler.


----------



## rightwinger

The man who was standing was backing away
Shooting someone for pushing you to the ground is not......stand your ground


----------



## Unkotare

Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

whitehall said:


> How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.


It’s not – should have gone in R and E – but politics gets more traffic.

And there is a moral argument to be made that deadly force should never be used, that it’s always wrong, even in self-defense.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> The man who was standing was backing away
> Shooting someone for pushing you to the ground is not......stand your ground



Had he turned and ran maybe.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Unkotare said:


> Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.



He didn't deserve to die for that.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

rightwinger said:


> The man who was standing was backing away
> Shooting someone for pushing you to the ground is not......stand your ground



Even if he is on the_ ground?_


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Marion Morrison said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deserve to die for that.
Click to expand...


  He didnt die because of a parking spot.


----------



## Unkotare

Marion Morrison said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deserve to die for that.
Click to expand...


True, but if he (or the wife if she was driving) hadn’t been a dick to start with, the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not – should have gone in R and E – but politics gets more traffic.
> 
> And there is a moral argument to be made that deadly force should never be used, that it’s always wrong, even in self-defense.
Click to expand...


     There are plenty reasons to shoot someone.
 In this case the guy overreacted but his actions appear to be within the law.


----------



## Unkotare

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not – should have gone in R and E – but politics gets more traffic.
> 
> And there is a moral argument to be made that deadly force should never be used, that it’s always wrong, even in self-defense.
Click to expand...




That’s a contradiction.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Unkotare said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't deserve to die for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but if he (or the wife if she was driving) hadn’t been a dick to start with, the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.
Click to expand...


  Agreed.
  Wife parks in handicap zone....wrong.
Husband reacts with immediate violence....wrong.


----------



## rightwinger

Soggy in NOLA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man who was standing was backing away
> Shooting someone for pushing you to the ground is not......stand your ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he is on the_ ground?_
Click to expand...


He was assaulted. 
The man who pushed him was guilty of a crime

But it is not grounds to kill someone. If he was on the ground and the guy came at him...he had justification to shoot

But shooting an unarmed man who is backing away from you is unjustified


----------



## miketx

ThoughtCrimes said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside-down PUTZ with that bullshit comment.
> 
> The white supremacist on the ground was employing threatening gestures toward the man's wife and probably shouting specific epitaphs from the look of his conduct in the video at her car window. Any real man would protect his wife and push an asshole like that away from his her in that type of situation.
> 
> The aggressor was the shooter even before he pulled the gun initiating an argument with the woman, regardless of her parking error. That the asswipe was shoved away from the woman by her husband and went down when he was pushed away from the other man's wife was a consequence of his own fucking aggressive actions.
> 
> The round fired was absolutely unnecessary given the soon to be dead man backed up, most probably to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture. The shooter was in no danger when he fired, your bullshit version notwithstanding.  Why the fuck was a man with anger issues as described in the video was LICENSED to carry should be under investigation. The shooter will be found guilty of at least manslaughter, but if I was on the jury it would vote for second degree murder!
Click to expand...

You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol


----------



## sealybobo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, a court will decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, there won’t be any trial.
> 
> From a local news source:
> 
> “Drejka is a legal concealed weapons permit holder and *will not be charged* because of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.”
> 
> https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-pinellas/video-shows-deadly-shooting-over-parking-spot-at-clearwater-convenience-store
Click to expand...

The message must be then no matter what someone says you don’t have the right to put your hands on someone else. Had he not pushed him this wouldn’t have happened. If a tougher guy came up and shoved the shover would he like it? 

But the guy should have pulled the gun and not shot. That’s obvious


----------



## harmonica

Florida:
theater -popcorn shooting
'Stand your ground' defense rejected in Florida theater-shooting case
loud music---!!-- shooting
Shooting of Jordan Davis - Wikipedia
Trayvon Martin
etc etc 
??????



> Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent *imminent* death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.


bold mine

Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> Florida:
> theater -popcorn shooting
> 'Stand your ground' defense rejected in Florida theater-shooting case
> loud music---!!-- shooting
> Shooting of Jordan Davis - Wikipedia
> Trayvon Martin
> etc etc
> ??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent *imminent* death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
> 
> 
> 
> bold mine
> 
> Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine
Click to expand...

Hardly looked imminent 

The guy was disengaging once the gun was drawn


----------



## TheDude

Tough situation.  Dumbshit 1 was looking for a problem.  Dumbshit 2 thought he'd flex his muscle to show-off for his girlfriend.  In my opinion dumbshit 1 faces somewhere in the neighborhood of manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.  Seven-ten.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it’s rightists who always spoil a civil discussion by making it partisan, this post being one of many examples.
Click to expand...


You live in a bubble, Clayton


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
Click to expand...


Ditto for the shooting


----------



## westwall

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:







I agree, and this has nothing to do with the Stand your ground laws.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
Click to expand...


As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.

And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

miketx said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside-down PUTZ with that bullshit comment.
> 
> The white supremacist on the ground was employing threatening gestures toward the man's wife and probably shouting specific epitaphs from the look of his conduct in the video at her car window. Any real man would protect his wife and push an asshole like that away from his her in that type of situation.
> 
> The aggressor was the shooter even before he pulled the gun initiating an argument with the woman, regardless of her parking error. That the asswipe was shoved away from the woman by her husband and went down when he was pushed away from the other man's wife was a consequence of his own fucking aggressive actions.
> 
> The round fired was absolutely unnecessary given the soon to be dead man backed up, most probably to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture. The shooter was in no danger when he fired, your bullshit version notwithstanding.  Why the fuck was a man with anger issues as described in the video was LICENSED to carry should be under investigation. The shooter will be found guilty of at least manslaughter, but if I was on the jury it would vote for second degree murder!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
Click to expand...




miketx said:


> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol


_First_, it wasn't my attack, fool!

_Second_, if your dumb ass had paid attention to the details displayed in the video, you would have seen the shooter shaking his fist at the woman in the car and was VERY *PROBABLY* haranguing her as he shook his fist in agitation. It didn't look like American Sign Language to me, shit for brains! That is very aggressive conduct by any measure! Would you not put yourself between a loved one and an aggressor in that situation or are you just a fucking coward sitting at a keyboard with self absorbed fantasies?

_Third_, I wrote that the soon to be dead man, "most *probably* to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture". Being over 8 feet away from the shooter and in a non-aggressive posture slightly moving further away when shot, does not mitigate in the shooter's favor for a self defense claim under the Florida SYG statute when he dropped the hammer. Stupid fucking rabbit!

There is clear video that damn's the shooter along with witnesses in clear view of the event to boot this time, Cowboy!


----------



## Natural Citizen

G.T. said:


> The pushER was walking BACKWARDS.




This


----------



## miketx

ThoughtCrimes said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside-down PUTZ with that bullshit comment.
> 
> The white supremacist on the ground was employing threatening gestures toward the man's wife and probably shouting specific epitaphs from the look of his conduct in the video at her car window. Any real man would protect his wife and push an asshole like that away from his her in that type of situation.
> 
> The aggressor was the shooter even before he pulled the gun initiating an argument with the woman, regardless of her parking error. That the asswipe was shoved away from the woman by her husband and went down when he was pushed away from the other man's wife was a consequence of his own fucking aggressive actions.
> 
> The round fired was absolutely unnecessary given the soon to be dead man backed up, most probably to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture. The shooter was in no danger when he fired, your bullshit version notwithstanding.  Why the fuck was a man with anger issues as described in the video was LICENSED to carry should be under investigation. The shooter will be found guilty of at least manslaughter, but if I was on the jury it would vote for second degree murder!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _First_, it wasn't my attack, fool!
> 
> _Second_, if your dumb ass had paid attention to the details displayed in the video, you would have seen the shooter shaking his fist at the woman in the car and was VERY *PROBABLY* haranguing her as he shook his fist in agitation. It didn't look like American Sign Language to me, shit for brains! That is very aggressive conduct by any measure! Would you not put yourself between a loved one and an aggressor in that situation or are you just a fucking coward sitting at a keyboard with self absorbed fantasies?
> 
> _Third_, I wrote that the soon to be dead man, "most *probably* to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture". Being over 8 feet away from the shooter and in a non-aggressive posture slightly moving further away when shot, does not mitigate in the shooter's favor for a self defense claim under the Florida SYG statute when he dropped the hammer. Stupid fucking rabbit!
> 
> There is clear video that damn's the shooter along with witnesses in clear view of the event to boot this time, Cowboy!
Click to expand...

Please control your self ok? I'm sorry you don't like my opinion, but I just think it was justified on what I can see.


----------



## westwall

miketx said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside-down PUTZ with that bullshit comment.
> 
> The white supremacist on the ground was employing threatening gestures toward the man's wife and probably shouting specific epitaphs from the look of his conduct in the video at her car window. Any real man would protect his wife and push an asshole like that away from his her in that type of situation.
> 
> The aggressor was the shooter even before he pulled the gun initiating an argument with the woman, regardless of her parking error. That the asswipe was shoved away from the woman by her husband and went down when he was pushed away from the other man's wife was a consequence of his own fucking aggressive actions.
> 
> The round fired was absolutely unnecessary given the soon to be dead man backed up, most probably to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture. The shooter was in no danger when he fired, your bullshit version notwithstanding.  Why the fuck was a man with anger issues as described in the video was LICENSED to carry should be under investigation. The shooter will be found guilty of at least manslaughter, but if I was on the jury it would vote for second degree murder!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _First_, it wasn't my attack, fool!
> 
> _Second_, if your dumb ass had paid attention to the details displayed in the video, you would have seen the shooter shaking his fist at the woman in the car and was VERY *PROBABLY* haranguing her as he shook his fist in agitation. It didn't look like American Sign Language to me, shit for brains! That is very aggressive conduct by any measure! Would you not put yourself between a loved one and an aggressor in that situation or are you just a fucking coward sitting at a keyboard with self absorbed fantasies?
> 
> _Third_, I wrote that the soon to be dead man, "most *probably* to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture". Being over 8 feet away from the shooter and in a non-aggressive posture slightly moving further away when shot, does not mitigate in the shooter's favor for a self defense claim under the Florida SYG statute when he dropped the hammer. Stupid fucking rabbit!
> 
> There is clear video that damn's the shooter along with witnesses in clear view of the event to boot this time, Cowboy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please control your self ok? I'm sorry you don't like my opinion, but I just think it was justified on what I can see.
Click to expand...






The second the guy stepped back, you no longer have the right to shoot him.  If he makes a move towards you again, by all means shoot.  But once he is moving away he is no longer an imminent threat and your justification flies out the window.


----------



## miketx

westwall said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside-down PUTZ with that bullshit comment.
> 
> The white supremacist on the ground was employing threatening gestures toward the man's wife and probably shouting specific epitaphs from the look of his conduct in the video at her car window. Any real man would protect his wife and push an asshole like that away from his her in that type of situation.
> 
> The aggressor was the shooter even before he pulled the gun initiating an argument with the woman, regardless of her parking error. That the asswipe was shoved away from the woman by her husband and went down when he was pushed away from the other man's wife was a consequence of his own fucking aggressive actions.
> 
> The round fired was absolutely unnecessary given the soon to be dead man backed up, most probably to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture. The shooter was in no danger when he fired, your bullshit version notwithstanding.  Why the fuck was a man with anger issues as described in the video was LICENSED to carry should be under investigation. The shooter will be found guilty of at least manslaughter, but if I was on the jury it would vote for second degree murder!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _First_, it wasn't my attack, fool!
> 
> _Second_, if your dumb ass had paid attention to the details displayed in the video, you would have seen the shooter shaking his fist at the woman in the car and was VERY *PROBABLY* haranguing her as he shook his fist in agitation. It didn't look like American Sign Language to me, shit for brains! That is very aggressive conduct by any measure! Would you not put yourself between a loved one and an aggressor in that situation or are you just a fucking coward sitting at a keyboard with self absorbed fantasies?
> 
> _Third_, I wrote that the soon to be dead man, "most *probably* to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture". Being over 8 feet away from the shooter and in a non-aggressive posture slightly moving further away when shot, does not mitigate in the shooter's favor for a self defense claim under the Florida SYG statute when he dropped the hammer. Stupid fucking rabbit!
> 
> There is clear video that damn's the shooter along with witnesses in clear view of the event to boot this time, Cowboy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please control your self ok? I'm sorry you don't like my opinion, but I just think it was justified on what I can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second the guy stepped back, you no longer have the right to shoot him.  If he makes a move towards you again, by all means shoot.  But once he is moving away he is no longer an imminent threat and your justification flies out the window.
Click to expand...

I think it may also depend on what was said as he moved away. We can't hear anything in the video. It may hinge on that.


----------



## Harry Dresden

sealybobo said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> So whatever the guy on the ground says is law?
> 
> Watch the tape he’s clearly guilty. The man wasn’t coming forward. If I were on that jury anyways
Click to expand...

yep if i was on his jury the guy would be guilty....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
Click to expand...


  He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
Thats about as in your face as you can get.
   Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
    But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.

    Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.


----------



## JoeMoma

Slight tangent:  Should the shooter be allowed to keep his CWP even if cleared in this incident?

I think the white guy was at minimum guilty of public disorderly conduct which could be grounds for taking his CWP if its  routine behavior.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
Click to expand...


 Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

JoeMoma said:


> Slight tangent:  Should the shooter be allowed to keep his CWP even if cleared in this incident?
> 
> I think the white guy was at minimum guilty of public disorderly conduct which could be grounds for taking his CWP if its  routine behavior.



  If he's not charged with a crime I dont see how they can take away his CCL.


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
Click to expand...



we dont know if the owner had in the past 

but it seems pretty clear that no legal acrion was taken against the guy to keep him off the property


----------



## JoeMoma

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
Click to expand...

It depends on the frequency and how long the guy hangs out at the store.  If it happens about once a month and the guy is gone in five minutes or less....  I  might not bother.  On hindsight, it is probably good to get the police to file a report on the incidents that led up to this one....but that's hindsight.


----------



## JoeMoma

HereWeGoAgain said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slight tangent:  Should the shooter be allowed to keep his CWP even if cleared in this incident?
> 
> I think the white guy was at minimum guilty of public disorderly conduct which could be grounds for taking his CWP if its  routine behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's not charged with a crime I dont see how they can take away his CCL.
Click to expand...

Public disorderly conduct.....he can be charged with that.


----------



## Tom Horn

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...


No, it's dependent on what the other guy might do next...the black guy didn't turn and walk away after he flattened the smaller white guy....he continued menacing him...justified shooting.


----------



## PredFan

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


Agreed. This incident did not warrant using a firearm. This is murder.


----------



## PredFan

U2Edge said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
Click to expand...


Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder. 

I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.


----------



## PredFan

miketx said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? He didn't break any law.
Click to expand...


Yeah he did. He killed someone who was not a threat.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

jon_berzerk said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we dont know if the owner had in the past
> 
> but it seems pretty clear that no legal acrion was taken against the guy to keep him off the property
Click to expand...


  Yep.
So the the store owner obviously wasnt all that concerned about the guy even though he claimed the guy was a problem.


----------



## PredFan

ozro said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
Click to expand...


The only important detail is that the attacker backed away.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

JoeMoma said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slight tangent:  Should the shooter be allowed to keep his CWP even if cleared in this incident?
> 
> I think the white guy was at minimum guilty of public disorderly conduct which could be grounds for taking his CWP if its  routine behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's not charged with a crime I dont see how they can take away his CCL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Public disorderly conduct.....he can be charged with that.
Click to expand...


  Wouldnt someone have to actually file charges?
Seems like doing it after the fact wouldnt fly.


----------



## miketx

I probably should not have commented here much. We don't have all the facts. Maybe he did over react.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
Click to expand...


   Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.


----------



## PredFan

I guarantee you there will be a trial and the guy will be very lucky to not spend a long time in jail.


----------



## PredFan

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
Click to expand...


“Pretty sure”?


----------



## JoeMoma

HereWeGoAgain said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slight tangent:  Should the shooter be allowed to keep his CWP even if cleared in this incident?
> 
> I think the white guy was at minimum guilty of public disorderly conduct which could be grounds for taking his CWP if its  routine behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's not charged with a crime I dont see how they can take away his CCL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Public disorderly conduct.....he can be charged with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldnt someone have to actually file charges?
> Seems like doing it after the fact wouldnt fly.
Click to expand...

Charges are not filed "before the fact".  This is a very recent event.  Of course charges can still be filed!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> I guarantee you there will be a trial and the guy will be very lucky to not spend a long time in jail.



  It'l be interesting to see if they do.
The video will either damn him or exonerate him.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
Click to expand...


  I'd have to dig up the link but thats what was said.


----------



## PredFan

I know I wouldn’t have shot him. Of course I wouldn’t have parked in a handicap spot nor, if I was carrying, would I have confronted someone who did. The easiest way to ruin your life is to carry a gun and walk around talking smack.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
Click to expand...


A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.

Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law

WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter

Then you have this one....
Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested


----------



## rightwinger

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
Click to expand...

From your link...

This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
Click to expand...


  Why do you think I said then you have this one?


----------



## PredFan

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
Click to expand...


Ok well, I stand corrected. I still wouldn’t have shot him. Likely from the video, I wouldn’t have even drawn on him.


----------



## RandomPoster

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:



  After the gunshot victim pushed the shooter down, he actually stepped back a few feet away from him before he drew the gun and stood waiting to see what his reaction would be.  He did not jump on him and start hitting him or kick while he was down.  He was not moving towards him at the time he drew the pistol, simply standing his own ground and more or less saying what are you going to do about it.  I do not believe the shooter was in fear for his life.


----------



## rightwinger

To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property

In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved

Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away

The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun 

It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok well, I stand corrected. I still wouldn’t have shot him. Likely from the video, I wouldn’t have even drawn on him.
Click to expand...


Post #198.

  I would have only to stop the attack.
Then I would have gotten the plate number and called the cops.

"He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
Thats about as in your face as you can get.
Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either."


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself



  He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
   Get the plate number and call the cops.


----------



## rightwinger

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
Click to expand...

Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground

The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure


----------



## PredFan

rightwinger said:


> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself



I maintain that if I was on a jury at his trial I would have to vote guilty of murder or whatever the charge was. The video seems to clearly show no threat.

As a CCW holder I am prepared to use deadly force when warranted. The attacker was unarmed and clearly not continuing the attack. If I judged wrong in that situation, the worse that could happen to me would to get kicked or punched again. Then I would have been justified. The fact that the video clearly shows him back off after being drawn on, seems to be contrary to Stand Your Ground as I know it to be.

But, I’m not an attorney, I just play one in my mind.


----------



## rightwinger

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
Click to expand...

Agree

But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?

Both acted poorly


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
Click to expand...


  While the DA may pursue charges they have to prove the guy wasnt in fear for his life.
 Pretty tough case to make.


----------



## PredFan

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
Click to expand...


Public opinion SHOULD never be a factor in law.

“Should” I said.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
Click to expand...


  Many a people have died from head trauma from a hard fall.
So I'd guess this could be considered a serious assault case with the intent to cause serious bodily injury.


----------



## rightwinger

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the DA may pursue charges they have to prove the guy wasnt in fear for his life.
> Pretty tough case to make.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, anyone in a fight can pull a gun and fire because he fears for his life 

Hard to justify a shove makes you fear for your life


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> 
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the DA may pursue charges they have to prove the guy wasnt in fear for his life.
> Pretty tough case to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is the case, anyone in a fight can pull a gun and fire because he fears for his life
> 
> Hard to justify a shove makes you fear for your life
Click to expand...


  This wasnt a minor push.
Had the guy turned to run and got shot it'd be over for the shooter.


----------



## rightwinger

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many a people have died from head trauma from a hard fall.
> So I'd guess this could be considered a serious assault case with the intent to cause serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...

Agree

It was definitely an assault. The assailant would claim he was protecting his girlfriend and pushed the man away instead of punching him

I don’t see where it crosses the threshold for deadly force


----------



## 2aguy

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:




It is not a stand your ground case.....when you are on the ground, you can't retreat. which takes away the stand your ground issue....just like in the Martin shooting.

As to wether he deserved to shoot the guy.....  do you know what the intent of the man standing up was?  Do you know what it looked like to the man on the ground?  When you are in a self defense situation, your vision constricts, your sense of time goes haywire...all because of an adrenaline dump....as the guy backed up, the guy on the ground could have believed the other guy was reaching for his own weapon...

this is why you don't push people to the ground.......


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many a people have died from head trauma from a hard fall.
> So I'd guess this could be considered a serious assault case with the intent to cause serious bodily injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> It was definitely an assault. The assailant would claim he was protecting his girlfriend and pushed the man away instead of punching him
> 
> I don’t see where it crosses the threshold for deadly force
Click to expand...


  The only problem with that is she was exiting the vehicle when her boyfriend was approaching showing she wasnt afraid.
   Most people would lock their doors.


----------



## 2aguy

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:




Sorry.... the guy who pushed the guy initiated the incident..... there is no reason to push someone like that and he escalated the encounter..... at that point, you don't know what the guy on the ground believed was happening...... until you are on the ground, possibly injured or hitting your head.....you can't tell what really was going on.


----------



## 2aguy

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many a people have died from head trauma from a hard fall.
> So I'd guess this could be considered a serious assault case with the intent to cause serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...



The former Mayor Daley in Chicago has a nephew.  The nephew got into an argument with a guy at a bar, punched the guy once.... the guy fell, hit his head on the curb and went into a comma, dying, never waking up..... this was a violent assault......


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many a people have died from head trauma from a hard fall.
> So I'd guess this could be considered a serious assault case with the intent to cause serious bodily injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> It was definitely an assault. The assailant would claim he was protecting his girlfriend and pushed the man away instead of punching him
> 
> I don’t see where it crosses the threshold for deadly force
Click to expand...



You weren't on the ground.......


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

2aguy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.... the guy who pushed the guy initiated the incident..... there is no reason to push someone like that and he escalated the encounter..... at that point, you don't know what the guy on the ground believed was happening...... until you are on the ground, possibly injured or hitting your head.....you can't tell what really was going on.
Click to expand...


    I think he'll get off but I dont believe the guy needed to shoot him.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
Click to expand...



Technically, it isn't a stand your ground case.... he was on the ground and had no option to retreat.  Stand your Ground only comes in when you are able to retreat, but are not required to do so....


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
Click to expand...



How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

2aguy said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many a people have died from head trauma from a hard fall.
> So I'd guess this could be considered a serious assault case with the intent to cause serious bodily injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The former Mayor Daley in Chicago has a nephew.  The nephew got into an argument with a guy at a bar, punched the guy once.... the guy fell, hit his head on the curb and went into a comma, dying, never waking up..... this was a violent assault......
Click to expand...


  I agree.
It's unfortunate the guy died but it looks like by law the guy was within his rights to shoot.
    Personally I wouldnt have.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a stand your ground case.....when you are on the ground, you can't retreat. which takes away the stand your ground issue....just like in the Martin shooting.
> 
> As to wether he deserved to shoot the guy.....  do you know what the intent of the man standing up was?  Do you know what it looked like to the man on the ground?  When you are in a self defense situation, your vision constricts, your sense of time goes haywire...all because of an adrenaline dump....as the guy backed up, the guy on the ground could have believed the other guy was reaching for his own weapon...
> 
> this is why you don't push people to the ground.......
Click to expand...

This is why concealed carry can get out of hand


----------



## 2aguy

HereWeGoAgain said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.... the guy who pushed the guy initiated the incident..... there is no reason to push someone like that and he escalated the encounter..... at that point, you don't know what the guy on the ground believed was happening...... until you are on the ground, possibly injured or hitting your head.....you can't tell what really was going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he'll get off but I dont believe the guy needed to shoot him.
Click to expand...



Maybe not, but he didn't create the situation..... he was the one violently attacked.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a stand your ground case.....when you are on the ground, you can't retreat. which takes away the stand your ground issue....just like in the Martin shooting.
> 
> As to wether he deserved to shoot the guy.....  do you know what the intent of the man standing up was?  Do you know what it looked like to the man on the ground?  When you are in a self defense situation, your vision constricts, your sense of time goes haywire...all because of an adrenaline dump....as the guy backed up, the guy on the ground could have believed the other guy was reaching for his own weapon...
> 
> this is why you don't push people to the ground.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn’t why concealed carry can get out of hand
Click to expand...



And yet the concealed carrier didn't start the attack, and was defending himself.  And since these are extremely rare, where there is this question.....considering there are 17 million people carrying guns for self defense.....there isn't a problem.


----------



## EGR one

U2Edge said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
Click to expand...


You have to use the reasonable man standard to determine whether the fear was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.  Personally, I do not think that a reasonable man would have shot his attacker.


----------



## 2aguy

EGR one said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to use the reasonable man standard to determine whether the fear was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.  Personally, I do not think that a reasonable man would have shot his attacker.
Click to expand...



I disagree..... you are simply arguing with a woman and some guy comes out and violently attacks you....  is there a kick coming next, how about a weapon about to come out.....  you weren't the guy on the ground, you didn't see the expression on the face of the attacker or his body language..... fear of death or bodily harm is a lot different after you have been violently attacked and adrenaline hits your system.


----------



## 2aguy

There needs to be a "maybe" answer.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
Click to expand...


How?
Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him

Having a gun means might makes right
It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences


----------



## 2aguy

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:




Watching the video, after the push the guy is still advancing on the victim....only in the split second as the gun comes out does he back away..... and by then the adrenaline has obscured the vision of the victim and collapsed time, so he doesn't have the ability to see the guy backing away.....

This is why you don't physically attack people over an argument.......


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
Click to expand...



Sorry...... watching it on the video is completely different from being violently pushed to the ground,  and the attacker kept advancing...... you don't know what you are talking about.... the victims body chemistry took over.  You should really do some research into self defense so you might know what you are talking about.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a stand your ground case.....when you are on the ground, you can't retreat. which takes away the stand your ground issue....just like in the Martin shooting.
> 
> As to wether he deserved to shoot the guy.....  do you know what the intent of the man standing up was?  Do you know what it looked like to the man on the ground?  When you are in a self defense situation, your vision constricts, your sense of time goes haywire...all because of an adrenaline dump....as the guy backed up, the guy on the ground could have believed the other guy was reaching for his own weapon...
> 
> this is why you don't push people to the ground.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why concealed carry can get out of hand
Click to expand...


  Dont attack someone.
Problem solved.


----------



## 2aguy

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...



That is the law..... you have to be in fear of death or grievious bodily harm.....  and since the attacker attacked the guy violently and then kept advancing..... it was on him....not the victim.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
Click to expand...


The guy didn't warn the victim, he walked up and pushed him to the ground and kept advancing, no word or warning and the attack.....  normal people don't do that, so what was coming next?  More Violence?   Pulling a weapon?


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
Click to expand...



How do you know the guy was unarmed?  When you have been violently attacked and the guy is advancing on you?


----------



## cwise76

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


Murder straight up


----------



## cwise76

miketx said:


> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.


Horse shit. Watch the video


----------



## 2aguy

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:




Anyone notice there is no information on the attacker other than he had 3 children out of wedlock with the mother?   Usually that means a criminal record.....does anyone know for sure?


----------



## cwise76

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the guy was unarmed?  When you have been violently attacked and the guy is advancing on you?
Click to expand...

Murder


----------



## 2aguy

Anyone know the age of the victim?   Is he a senior citizen or an older guy?


----------



## Vastator

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.


It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...


----------



## 2aguy

cwise76 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the guy was unarmed?  When you have been violently attacked and the guy is advancing on you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder
Click to expand...



No..... there was an attack......  that muddies the water a lot...


----------



## 2aguy

Vastator said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
Click to expand...



Do you know if the attacker has a record...the story, as usual, doesn't say anything but tragic things about the attacker.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
Click to expand...


I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values


----------



## Vastator

U2Edge said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
Click to expand...

People have been killed from being pushed to the ground...


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
Click to expand...


It never worked at my restaurant.  Sure, the cops chased them off, but they came right back


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
Click to expand...


   I wouldnt have said anything either.
But words dont give you the right to attack someone.


----------



## kaz

JoeMoma said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on the frequency and how long the guy hangs out at the store.  If it happens about once a month and the guy is gone in five minutes or less....  I  might not bother.  On hindsight, it is probably good to get the police to file a report on the incidents that led up to this one....but that's hindsight.
Click to expand...


The owner knew who he was and what he was doing, so it wasn't that infrequent


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we dont know if the owner had in the past
> 
> but it seems pretty clear that no legal acrion was taken against the guy to keep him off the property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.
> So the the store owner obviously wasnt all that concerned about the guy even though he claimed the guy was a problem.
Click to expand...


You made that up.  Imagine sitting in a store with a guy is pit bulling a parking space and you're there alone.  He said something was wrong with the guy.  Psychos are the worst ones to deal with


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watching the video, after the push the guy is still advancing on the victim....only in the split second as the gun comes out does he back away..... and by then the adrenaline has obscured the vision of the victim and collapsed time, so he doesn't have the ability to see the guy backing away.....
> 
> This is why you don't physically attack people over an argument.......
Click to expand...

How do you know what adrenaline the guy had?
Seems more like rage


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
Click to expand...


  I was taught not to park in a handicap zone.


----------



## rightwinger

Vastator said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People have been killed from being pushed to the ground...
Click to expand...

But he wasn’t 

So he wasn’t justified to use deadly force


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Vastator said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
Click to expand...


 Legally yes.
Personally I wouldnt have shot the dude.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt ad up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we dont know if the owner had in the past
> 
> but it seems pretty clear that no legal acrion was taken against the guy to keep him off the property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.
> So the the store owner obviously wasnt all that concerned about the guy even though he claimed the guy was a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made that up.  Imagine sitting in a store with a guy is pit bulling a parking space and you're there alone.  He said something was wrong with the guy.  Psychos are the worst ones to deal with
Click to expand...


Made it up?
 The guy said he was causing problems.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
Click to expand...


When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?

And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.

Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.

At least not where I was raised


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we dont know if the owner had in the past
> 
> but it seems pretty clear that no legal acrion was taken against the guy to keep him off the property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.
> So the the store owner obviously wasnt all that concerned about the guy even though he claimed the guy was a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made that up.  Imagine sitting in a store with a guy is pit bulling a parking space and you're there alone.  He said something was wrong with the guy.  Psychos are the worst ones to deal with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it up?
> The guy said he was causing problems.
Click to expand...


Swish.  You made up the owner wasn't concerned.  You have no basis to say that.  He brought it up


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> The second the guy stepped back, you no longer have the right to shoot him.  If he makes a move towards you again, by all means shoot.  But once he is moving away he is no longer an imminent threat and your justification flies out the window.



Not necessarily.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taught not to park in a handicap zone.
Click to expand...


OK, then he deserved to get shot.  You win


----------



## OODA_Loop

PredFan said:


> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.


 He is not being charged,   SYG.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
Click to expand...


    The guy was at least five feet from the car and no threat to the lady. In fact she decided to get out of the car as her boy friend approached so she obviously wasn't afraid.


----------



## Vastator

rightwinger said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People have been killed from being pushed to the ground...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he wasn’t
> 
> So he wasn’t justified to use deadly force
Click to expand...

Wrong. How stupid are you? Wait till you are killed; and then use deadly force? Try it, and let us know how that works out...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we dont know if the owner had in the past
> 
> but it seems pretty clear that no legal acrion was taken against the guy to keep him off the property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.
> So the the store owner obviously wasnt all that concerned about the guy even though he claimed the guy was a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made that up.  Imagine sitting in a store with a guy is pit bulling a parking space and you're there alone.  He said something was wrong with the guy.  Psychos are the worst ones to deal with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it up?
> The guy said he was causing problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish.  You made up the owner wasn't concerned.  You have no basis to say that.  He brought it up
Click to expand...


If he didnt try and run him off he obviously wasnt that concerned.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

U2Edge said:


> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:


For some people being armed leads them to confront people that I don't believe they would had they not been armed. 
Illegally parking is not generally a "crime" but an infraction of a civil code - it doesn't result in jail time so while the couple was in the wrong by parking the way they did, and the guy was in the wrong for putting his hands on Drejka, shooting him after he signaled retreat (hands up) and actually backed up would seem more to be more a "how dare you" move than made out of actual fear especially in light of the follow excerpt from a different news article

Drejka is a legal concealed weapon permit holder and will not be charged because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

*The store owner said that Drejka has a history of assaulting people in the very parking lot the shooting took place*. A man who frequents the store said he had a run-in with Drejka just one month ago.

Rich Kelly says the man picked a fight with him over a parking spot, using racial slurs, and even threatening to kill him.
Video: Florida man shot, killed during parking spot dispute​


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taught not to park in a handicap zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, then he deserved to get shot.  You win
Click to expand...


I have said repeatedly he didnt deserve to get shot.
Legally not so much.


----------



## Vastator

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second the guy stepped back, you no longer have the right to shoot him.  If he makes a move towards you again, by all means shoot.  But once he is moving away he is no longer an imminent threat and your justification flies out the window.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

Agreed. By such logic you could run around sucker punching, or stabbing people; but as long as you back away afterwards you nullify the right of the victim to defend himself. And that’s not even bringing into the conversation the attackers intent. Backing up to square off; daring his victim to get up? Backing up to get a running start for a kick to the head? Or simply backing out of the victims defensive range...? Fortunately the victim had a gun.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> 
> 
> For some people being armed leads them to confront people that I don't believe they would had they not been armed.
> Illegally parking is not generally a "crime" but an infraction of a civil code - it doesn't result in jail time so while the couple was in the wrong by parking the way they did, and the guy was in the wrong for putting his hands on Drejka, shooting him after he signaled retreat (hands up) and actually backed up would seem more to be more a "how dare you" move than made out of actual fear especially in light of the follow excerpt from a different news article
> 
> Drejka is a legal concealed weapon permit holder and will not be charged because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
> 
> *The store owner said that Drejka has a history of assaulting people in the very parking lot the shooting took place*. A man who frequents the store said he had a run-in with Drejka just one month ago.
> 
> Rich Kelly says the man picked a fight with him over a parking spot, using racial slurs, and even threatening to kill him.
> Video: Florida man shot, killed during parking spot dispute​
Click to expand...


  Thats not what the store owner said.


----------



## westwall

miketx said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside-down PUTZ with that bullshit comment.
> 
> The white supremacist on the ground was employing threatening gestures toward the man's wife and probably shouting specific epitaphs from the look of his conduct in the video at her car window. Any real man would protect his wife and push an asshole like that away from his her in that type of situation.
> 
> The aggressor was the shooter even before he pulled the gun initiating an argument with the woman, regardless of her parking error. That the asswipe was shoved away from the woman by her husband and went down when he was pushed away from the other man's wife was a consequence of his own fucking aggressive actions.
> 
> The round fired was absolutely unnecessary given the soon to be dead man backed up, most probably to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture. The shooter was in no danger when he fired, your bullshit version notwithstanding.  Why the fuck was a man with anger issues as described in the video was LICENSED to carry should be under investigation. The shooter will be found guilty of at least manslaughter, but if I was on the jury it would vote for second degree murder!
> 
> 
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> You base your warrantless attack on "probably"? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _First_, it wasn't my attack, fool!
> 
> _Second_, if your dumb ass had paid attention to the details displayed in the video, you would have seen the shooter shaking his fist at the woman in the car and was VERY *PROBABLY* haranguing her as he shook his fist in agitation. It didn't look like American Sign Language to me, shit for brains! That is very aggressive conduct by any measure! Would you not put yourself between a loved one and an aggressor in that situation or are you just a fucking coward sitting at a keyboard with self absorbed fantasies?
> 
> _Third_, I wrote that the soon to be dead man, "most *probably* to put himself between the shooter and his wife and to indicate a non-aggressive posture". Being over 8 feet away from the shooter and in a non-aggressive posture slightly moving further away when shot, does not mitigate in the shooter's favor for a self defense claim under the Florida SYG statute when he dropped the hammer. Stupid fucking rabbit!
> 
> There is clear video that damn's the shooter along with witnesses in clear view of the event to boot this time, Cowboy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please control your self ok? I'm sorry you don't like my opinion, but I just think it was justified on what I can see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second the guy stepped back, you no longer have the right to shoot him.  If he makes a move towards you again, by all means shoot.  But once he is moving away he is no longer an imminent threat and your justification flies out the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it may also depend on what was said as he moved away. We can't hear anything in the video. It may hinge on that.
Click to expand...






Saying something doesn't matter.  Actions matter.  If he was backing up to get access to a weapon he deserves to be shot, but if he was backing away upon the weapon being presented, then the use of deadly force is not warranted.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
Click to expand...






Care to show us where having a CCW gives you special exemption from criminal charges if you misuse your firearm?  Based on your logic every police shooting ever should result in the criminal prosecution of every cop who shoots a bad guy.

Sure you want to try and use that particular bit of logic?


----------



## 2aguy

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:





rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watching the video, after the push the guy is still advancing on the victim....only in the split second as the gun comes out does he back away..... and by then the adrenaline has obscured the vision of the victim and collapsed time, so he doesn't have the ability to see the guy backing away.....
> 
> This is why you don't physically attack people over an argument.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know what adrenaline the guy had?
> Seems more like rage
Click to expand...



Study self defense..... then you will have some clue.


----------



## cwise76

the dude who got trigger happy and murdererd that guy is going away to the slammer. GUARANTEED


HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally yes.
> Personally I wouldnt have shot the dude.
Click to expand...

LOL. You’d be in prison. Watch the video again and dig deep; you know in your heart of hearts that encounter didn’t warrant the use of deadly force


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
> Had he been all up in her face I could see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
Click to expand...



Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....


----------



## cwise76

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, Stand your Ground means you are not expected to run away from a confrontation, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or your property
> 
> In this case, I see a man who was shoved to the ground. Not punched, but forcibly shoved
> 
> Once on the ground, I do not see the other man continue the assault and once the gun is drawn, he is backing away
> 
> The shot is fired with the man five feet away and backing away from the gun
> 
> It no longer seems to be self defense, I see no threat at that time and the guy on the ground seems to fire more in rage than in defending himself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show us where having a CCW gives you special exemption from criminal charges if you misuse your firearm?  Based on your logic every police shooting ever should result in the criminal prosecution of every cop who shoots a bad guy.
> 
> Sure you want to try and use that particular bit of logic?
Click to expand...

Another good point. A license to carry is not a license to kill


----------



## 2aguy

cwise76 said:


> the dude who got trigger happy and murdererd that guy is going away to the slammer. GUARANTEED
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally yes.
> Personally I wouldnt have shot the dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. You’d be in prison. Watch the video again and dig deep; you know in your heart of hearts that encounter didn’t warrant the use of deadly force
Click to expand...



No guarantee......


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
Click to expand...


If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns


----------



## westwall

The fact that the shooter has a possible history of initiating confrontations is bad for him.  If that is indeed true, then his shooting of the victim might very well be construed as murder.  If the claims are true, then it is clear that he was a co-beligerent.  Actions have consequences, and if was regularly spoiling for a fight, then he is in trouble.


----------



## westwall

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
Click to expand...







It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?


----------



## cwise76

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto for the shooting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
Click to expand...

Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too


----------



## westwall

cwise76 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show us where having a CCW gives you special exemption from criminal charges if you misuse your firearm?  Based on your logic every police shooting ever should result in the criminal prosecution of every cop who shoots a bad guy.
> 
> Sure you want to try and use that particular bit of logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another good point. A license to carry is not a license to kill
Click to expand...





Correct.  In fact, in my State, if you do resort to deadly force you are ASSUMED to know what the laws are regarding that use of force if you have a CCW.  No, "well I didn't know you couldn't do that", nonsense.


----------



## westwall

cwise76 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
Click to expand...





If the claims of prior bad acts prove to be true, i agree with you.


----------



## Circe

Okay, I want to retract my earlier opinion. I watched the video on ABC.

So this woman was doing a common no-no, and I see this done every time I go to my supermarket, but she DID stay in the car so she could move it if someone wanted the parking place.

Guy comes over yelling and carrying on because he's a total idiot and a known trouble-maker. I agree with others that it would be nice to know if he was a "senior citizen," code for senile, I suppose. I can imagine an old guy running around yelling at a woman -- he wouldn't be afraid of her, and he's feeling very self-righteous.

So the trouble-maker pushes the boyfriend down and then instantaneously that guy, prone on the asphalt, draws and kills him.

Okay, I have no problem with that.

People totally don't get to attack others like this. However pompous they feel about rule-breaking. Why can't people MIND THEIR OWN DARN BUSINESS????


----------



## kaz

westwall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
Click to expand...


Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?

I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> Okay, I want to retract my earlier opinion. I watched the video on ABC.
> 
> So this woman was doing a common no-no, and I see this done every time I go to my supermarket, but she DID stay in the car so she could move it if someone wanted the parking place.
> 
> Guy comes over yelling and carrying on because he's a total idiot and a known trouble-maker. I agree with others that it would be nice to know if he was a "senior citizen," code for senile, I suppose. I can imagine an old guy running around yelling at a woman -- he wouldn't be afraid of her, and he's feeling very self-righteous.
> 
> So the trouble-maker pushes the boyfriend down and then instantaneously that guy, prone on the asphalt, draws and kills him.
> 
> Okay, I have no problem with that.
> 
> People totally don't get to attack others like this. However pompous they feel about rule-breaking. Why can't people MIND THEIR OWN DARN BUSINESS????



The boyfriend didn't kill the loon, the loon killed the boyfriend


----------



## RandomPoster

Everyone involved appears to have been acting like a hot headed idiot.  It looks to me like he shot him as he was backing away and it looks like he did so because he was pissed off, not in fear of his life.


----------



## westwall

kaz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
Click to expand...






No kidding.  What if you are not able to avoid it.  Sometimes a sharp yell will prevent further violence.  Not always, but sometimes it is exactly what is needed to deflate a situation.  You deal in absolutes and that is a fools way of looking at the world.

ANYONE who carries concealed OF COURSE KNOWS it is a great responsibility.  We all KNOW that we are both defenders of ourselves and those who can't defend themselves, and we are also envoys to the world to show the positive aspects of concealed carry.  But, there are ALWAYS idiots, who carry for the wrong reasons.  Just as there are cops who are cops for all the wrong reasons. 

What's the common denominator?  PEOPLE!


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.



The shover  created the situation.  Until then it was all verbal.


----------



## harmonica

TheDude said:


> Tough situation.  Dumbshit 1 was looking for a problem.  Dumbshit 2 thought he'd flex his muscle to show-off for his girlfriend.  In my opinion dumbshit 1 faces somewhere in the neighborhood of manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.  Seven-ten.


agree---that's usually how these situations are 
2 idiots
good call


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> The fact that the shooter has a possible history of initiating confrontations is bad for him.  If that is indeed true, then his shooting of the victim might very well be construed as murder.  If the claims are true, then it is clear that he was a co-beligerent.  Actions have consequences, and if was regularly spoiling for a fight, then he is in trouble.




Nope its over.  No charges.


----------



## OODA_Loop

cwise76 said:


> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too



This is not going to trial


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

cwise76 said:


> the dude who got trigger happy and murdererd that guy is going away to the slammer. GUARANTEED
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally yes.
> Personally I wouldnt have shot the dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. You’d be in prison. Watch the video again and dig deep; you know in your heart of hearts that encounter didn’t warrant the use of deadly force
Click to expand...


  I think the guy is going to walk.
Not that the guy should have shot him. 
   When the cops come right out and say they're not going to charge him it's a pretty good indication how the DA will go.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
Click to expand...

Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.


----------



## westwall

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the shooter has a possible history of initiating confrontations is bad for him.  If that is indeed true, then his shooting of the victim might very well be construed as murder.  If the claims are true, then it is clear that he was a co-beligerent.  Actions have consequences, and if was regularly spoiling for a fight, then he is in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope its over.  No charges.
Click to expand...






Maybe.  The Statute of limitations on Murder is FOREVER.  If the AG's office determines at ANY TIME, in the future, that there is probable cause for a murder charge, they can file one.


----------



## cwise76

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dickinig for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assistants location indicated the assault was over... Youre merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
Click to expand...

Wrong choice. Murder in my book


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> Maybe.  The Statute of limitations on Murder is FOREVER.  If the AG's office determines at ANY TIME, in the future, that there is probable cause for a murder charge, they can file one.



Already adjudicated by a judge.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

There's blame to go around for all involved.
Chick shouldnt have parked in a handicap zone.
Dude shouldnt have said anything about it.
Boyfriend shouldnt have assaulted the dude.
Dude shouldnt have shot the guy.

   Everyone of these people are fuck ups!!

To be honest I dont give a rats ass what happens to any of them jail or dead.

    Low class assholes all.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Moral:  Do not put your hands on people.


----------



## OODA_Loop

HereWeGoAgain said:


> There's blame to go around for all involved.
> Chick shouldnt have parked in a handicap zone.
> Dude shouldnt have said anything about it.
> Boyfriend shouldnt have assaulted the dude.
> Dude shouldnt have shot the guy.
> 
> Everyone of these people are fuck ups!!
> 
> To be honest I dont give a rats ass what happens to any of them jail or dead.
> 
> Low class assholes all.



The assault was the escalation of force that warranted defensive action.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's blame to go around for all involved.
> Chick shouldnt have parked in a handicap zone.
> Dude shouldnt have said anything about it.
> Boyfriend shouldnt have assaulted the dude.
> Dude shouldnt have shot the guy.
> 
> Everyone of these people are fuck ups!!
> 
> To be honest I dont give a rats ass what happens to any of them jail or dead.
> 
> Low class assholes all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assault was the escalation of force that warranted defensive action.
Click to expand...


    I believe the guy was in his rights to shoot the dude but I really dont believe it was necessary.


----------



## westwall

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  The Statute of limitations on Murder is FOREVER.  If the AG's office determines at ANY TIME, in the future, that there is probable cause for a murder charge, they can file one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already adjudicated by a judge.
Click to expand...






Murder has no Statute of Limitations dude.


----------



## OODA_Loop

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I believe the guy was in his rights to shoot the dude but I really dont believe it was necessary.



I avoid interaction with people unless I know them.


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> Murder has no Statute of Limitations dude.




This matter is closed by court action and charging would be double jeopardy,  um dude.


----------



## sealybobo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the DA may pursue charges they have to prove the guy wasnt in fear for his life.
> Pretty tough case to make.
Click to expand...

They can’t prove if he was afraid. Of course he was. But was it justifiable homocide? No.

If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot


----------



## OODA_Loop

Take away:    You can shoot someone COM and they can still continue the attack.

Bet it was .380(acp)


----------



## westwall

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder has no Statute of Limitations dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This matter is closed by court action and charging would be double jeopardy,  um dude.
Click to expand...







It can't be double jeopardy because he hasn't been to trial yet.  Where the hell did you learn your legalese?  A Cracker Jack box?


----------



## OODA_Loop

sealybobo said:


> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot


 
Not necessarily.


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> It can't be double jeopardy because he hasn't been to trial yet.  Where the hell did you learn your legalese?  A Cracker Jack box?



SYG hearing in front of judge adjudicated the matter.

This wasnt prosecutors not pressing charges - this matter went to court.


----------



## rightwinger

Vastator said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People have been killed from being pushed to the ground...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he wasn’t
> 
> So he wasn’t justified to use deadly force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. How stupid are you? Wait till you are killed; and then use deadly force? Try it, and let us know how that works out...
Click to expand...

Shoot first, ask questions later

This is a situation where an armed citizen did not save a life
An overreaction by an armed citizen turned a shouting and shoving situation into a homicide


----------



## westwall

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can't be double jeopardy because he hasn't been to trial yet.  Where the hell did you learn your legalese?  A Cracker Jack box?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SYG hearing in front of judge adjudicated the matter.
Click to expand...






Only in this initial presentation.  He hasn't had a prelim, he hasn't been arrested.  Thus your claim of double jeopardy is ridiculous.  Like I said before.  If the AG's office is able to come up with further evidence that shows this was premeditated they can refile and get the ball rolling again.

You need to stop watching TV criminal shows.  They are not accurate.


----------



## OODA_Loop

rightwinger said:


> This is a situation where an armed citizen did not save a life
> An overreaction by an armed citizen turned a shouting and shoving situation into a homicide




No ask yourself a question then shoot if the answer warrants it.
He may of saved his own life.


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> Only in this initial presentation.  He hasn't had a prelim, he hasn't been arrested.  Thus your claim of double jeopardy is ridiculous.  Like I said before.  If the AG's office is able to come up with further evidence that shows this was premeditated they can refile and get the ball rolling again.
> 
> You need to stop watching TV criminal shows.  They are not accurate.



Not under Florida SYG law.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People have been killed from being pushed to the ground...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he wasn’t
> 
> So he wasn’t justified to use deadly force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. How stupid are you? Wait till you are killed; and then use deadly force? Try it, and let us know how that works out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shoot first, ask questions later
> 
> This is a situation where an armed citizen did not save a life
> An overreaction by an armed citizen turned a shouting and shoving situation into a homicide
Click to expand...






Indeed it did.  And yet armed citizens do this far *LESS* frequently than cops do.  Go figure.


----------



## westwall

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in this initial presentation.  He hasn't had a prelim, he hasn't been arrested.  Thus your claim of double jeopardy is ridiculous.  Like I said before.  If the AG's office is able to come up with further evidence that shows this was premeditated they can refile and get the ball rolling again.
> 
> You need to stop watching TV criminal shows.  They are not accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not under Florida SYG law.
Click to expand...






Wrong.  If what you claim were true martins killer would have never gone to trial.  Same State, same laws apply.  Good luck with your interpretation.


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> Wrong.  If what you claim were true martins killer would have never gone to trial.  Same State, same laws apply.  Good luck with your interpretation.



No judge ruled against Zimmerman at the SYG hearing.   So it went to full trial.  Which upheld the SYG defense.


----------



## westwall

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  If what you claim were true martins killer would have never gone to trial.  Same State, same laws apply.  Good luck with your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No judge ruled against Zimmerman at the SYG hearing.   So it went to full trial.  Which upheld the SYG defense.
Click to expand...






It was the same situation.  There was no charge originally brought.  Then there was because of public outcry.


----------



## OODA_Loop

westwall said:


> It was the same situation.  There was no charge originally brought.  Then there was because of public outcry.




Zim waived the SYG trail.

This guy did not.  So he put on his SYG defense for the judge who dismissed the case


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who's owned five businesses, it's not simple to get the police to remove someone from your property.  And even if they do, they come right back.  Furthermore, the person can get angry at you.  It's a bad situation.
> 
> And the store owner said the guy kept doing that and he wasn't right.  That wouldn't scare you to call the cops on someone aggressive that the cops will just rile off further?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable point but if the guy was chasing off customers I'm sure he would have called the cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we dont know if the owner had in the past
> 
> but it seems pretty clear that no legal acrion was taken against the guy to keep him off the property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.
> So the the store owner obviously wasnt all that concerned about the guy even though he claimed the guy was a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made that up.  Imagine sitting in a store with a guy is pit bulling a parking space and you're there alone.  He said something was wrong with the guy.  Psychos are the worst ones to deal with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made it up?
> The guy said he was causing problems.
Click to expand...


yes he said that in the news report


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

kaz said:


> That's exactly it. That's my issue. Had he been minding his own business and been confronted, then I would have a totally different opinion. Carrying a gun and repeatedly initiating hostility is not consistent with my pro-second amendment views


Nor is it consistent with Florida stand your ground laws which require that the shooter not be the agressor in the conflict.  In other words you can't pick a fight with someone so that you can then claim fear for your life and then shoot and kill them

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) *Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself*, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) *In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.*​
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.
Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine​


----------



## kaz

westwall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.  What if you are not able to avoid it.  Sometimes a sharp yell will prevent further violence.  Not always, but sometimes it is exactly what is needed to deflate a situation.  You deal in absolutes and that is a fools way of looking at the world.
> 
> ANYONE who carries concealed OF COURSE KNOWS it is a great responsibility.  We all KNOW that we are both defenders of ourselves and those who can't defend themselves, and we are also envoys to the world to show the positive aspects of concealed carry.  But, there are ALWAYS idiots, who carry for the wrong reasons.  Just as there are cops who are cops for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> What's the common denominator?  PEOPLE!
Click to expand...


And yet people are blowing off that the guy with the gun continually confronted people.  When he did that over and over, how else would it ever end other than someone being dead?  It was just a matter of time.

To me, that's murder


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know, as the information in a news article surely leaves out important details that will be revealed during a trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very unlikely there'll be a trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will. I  can tell you that from personal experience .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what personal experience would that be and where did it play out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apache County Az, Feb.2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than you need to look at Florida law.
Click to expand...


Than??????


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shover  created the situation.  Until then it was all verbal.
Click to expand...


So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety?  You're seriously claiming that?  It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.

Also the victim was not being aggressive when the shooter shot him.  He shoved him once to get him away from his wife.

And again, that's not my argument.

When you're armed and repeatedly aggressive, it will end up in a shooting.  I hope you're not a gun owner.  Life isn't the shooting gallery you apparently believe it is


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
Click to expand...


The attacker was retreating.  Manslaughter.


----------



## kaz

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very unlikely there'll be a trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will. I  can tell you that from personal experience .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what personal experience would that be and where did it play out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apache County Az, Feb.2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than you need to look at Florida law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than??????
Click to expand...


You're right, but wow, spell and grammar checking message boards is mega lame


----------



## kaz

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The attacker was retreating.  Manslaughter.
Click to expand...


I could buy that if he did it once.  But when he kept repeating being armed and aggressive, it was inevitable it would end up in a death.  That's why I say murder, not manslaughter


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
Click to expand...


Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety?  You're seriously claiming that?  It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.



So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  She would not engage him.

I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.

We backup and leave.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

miketx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't watch the video, did you?  I'm a strong second amendment supporter, but that was just murder.   There was no rational self defense.  I'd call it first degree murder given that the guy clearly was trying to create that exact situation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I watched the video. We cannot hear what was said if anything but it happened fast. I don't think the the shooter was wrong. Did he have to shoot him? We don't know, maybe not, but what we do know is that he did shoot him after being violently knocked to the ground. If that had not happened, he would not have gotten shot. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  When he shot him, the man was not threatening him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was close enough too him to still be a threat.
Click to expand...


The word "too" means "also".

He was close enough also him to (correct usage) still be a threat.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## sealybobo

OODA_Loop said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

I just ran this scenario by my dad. He said of course he’d shoot someone who violently threw him to the ground. What more does he need to do to me before I get to shoot?

I think the message behind stand your ground is keep your hands off people


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety?  You're seriously claiming that?  It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  She would not engage him.
> 
> I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.
> 
> We backup and leave.
Click to expand...


So you would fear for your and your wife's safety.  Obviously you weren't being honest when you said it was "only verbal."  Threats are far more than verbal.

So you claim you'd be mega careful to not escalate, yet your'e defending someone who was armed and actively confronting people, one after another.  And you're OK with that.  Hmm


----------



## kaz

sealybobo said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just ran this scenario by my dad. He said of course he’d shoot someone who violently threw him to the ground. What more does he need to do to me before I get to shoot?
> 
> I think the message behind stand your ground is keep your hands off people
Click to expand...


Did you mention the part to your dad where in the scenario he is in the parking lot screaming at the guys wife when he came out of the store?


----------



## kaz

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't watch the video, did you?  I'm a strong second amendment supporter, but that was just murder.   There was no rational self defense.  I'd call it first degree murder given that the guy clearly was trying to create that exact situation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I watched the video. We cannot hear what was said if anything but it happened fast. I don't think the the shooter was wrong. Did he have to shoot him? We don't know, maybe not, but what we do know is that he did shoot him after being violently knocked to the ground. If that had not happened, he would not have gotten shot. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  When he shot him, the man was not threatening him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was close enough too him to still be a threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "too" means "also".
> 
> He was close enough also him to (correct usage) still be a threat.
> 
> Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...


If you're going to fix the Internet, you have a big job ahead of you


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> So you would fear for your and your wife's safety.  Obviously you weren't being honest when you said it was "only verbal."  Threats are far more than verbal.
> 
> So you claim you'd be mega careful to not escalate, yet your'e defending someone who was armed and actively confronting people, one after another.  And you're OK with that.  Hmm



I am not following your logic.

Because its is only "verbal"  I am in Condition Yellow beating a hasty retreat.   It is if and when it goes hands on I go Condition Red is my response as warranted.

I can take verbal all day.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

OODA_Loop said:


> Challenging someone for parking actions verbally is a lawful act. Lawful with a gun if you have a CCW.


Anybody know if the shooter had a disabled placard and the couple was preventing him from accessing a parking space he needed?


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would fear for your and your wife's safety.  Obviously you weren't being honest when you said it was "only verbal."  Threats are far more than verbal.
> 
> So you claim you'd be mega careful to not escalate, yet your'e defending someone who was armed and actively confronting people, one after another.  And you're OK with that.  Hmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not following your logic.
> 
> Because its is only Verbal  I am in condition yellow beating a hasty retreat.   It is if and when it goes hands on is my response as warranted.
> 
> I can take verbal all day.
Click to expand...


You can take someone screaming at your wife and you admit she's feeling threatened all day?  Seriously?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it said they were still deciding.  He should be charged minimum second degree murder.  I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the interview from the store clerk?
> 
> The video of the shooting pretty much clears the shooter.
Click to expand...


Someone pushes you down and backs away and your response is to kill him?  I hope you have a pretty mouth, because it might keep you alive in prison.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> You can take someone screaming at your wife and you admit she's feeling threatened all day?  Seriously?


 

Matter of proximity and ability to inflict great bodily injury or death..

Outside of car with her in it, armed.   Sure. All day.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Someone pushes you down and backs away and your response is to kill him?  I hope you have a pretty mouth, because it might keep you alive in prison.



Not in this case.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sealybobo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> 
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the DA may pursue charges they have to prove the guy wasnt in fear for his life.
> Pretty tough case to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can’t prove if he was afraid. Of course he was. But was it justifiable homocide? No.
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
Click to expand...


  The cops think otherwise.
Whether the DA does remains to be seen.


----------



## OODA_Loop

HereWeGoAgain said:


> The cops think otherwise.
> Whether the DA does remains to be seen.



Went to SYG hearing.   Its done.  No DA.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People have been killed from being pushed to the ground...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he wasn’t
> 
> So he wasn’t justified to use deadly force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. How stupid are you? Wait till you are killed; and then use deadly force? Try it, and let us know how that works out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shoot first, ask questions later
> 
> This is a situation where an armed citizen did not save a life
> An overreaction by an armed citizen turned a shouting and shoving situation into a homicide
Click to expand...


  If it was a simple shove I'd agree with you.
Sending the dude flying makes it a bit different.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was in the car.....my wife would of had the window up - hand on her Glock 43.
> 
> I would have slid into the passenger seat ready to draw my Glock 19 if necessary.
> 
> Back out.  Leave,
Click to expand...


You re going to leave your kid in the store?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You re going to leave your kid in the store?




No I dont have a kid.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The attacker was retreating.  Manslaughter.
Click to expand...


  Cops say otherwise.
Leave it up to the DA.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it.
> The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he could have.  But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."
> 
> The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low.  But he kept repeating the scenario.
> 
> If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the thing though.
> The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
> The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
> And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday.  If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that.  You have no basis to say that.
> 
> All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing.   And I think the'd be right.
> 
> That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me.  He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed.  That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
> That doesnt *ad* up.
> 
> Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.
Click to expand...


Advertising?

My God man, learn to write!


----------



## OODA_Loop

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Cops say otherwise.
> Leave it up to the DA.



Read up on SYG hearings.

Matter is closed


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let us watch as it plays out in the Fla court system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand your ground.
> Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The attacker was retreating.  Manslaughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cops say otherwise.
> Leave it up to the DA.
Click to expand...


What did I say that was different?  Are you capable of reading on at least  4th grade level?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cops say otherwise.
> Leave it up to the DA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read up on SYG hearings.
> 
> Matter is closed
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the interview from the store clerk?
> 
> The video of the shooting pretty much clears the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone pushes you down and backs away and your response is to kill him?  I hope you have a pretty mouth, because it might keep you alive in prison.
Click to expand...


  You are one stupid mother fucker.
I have said at least three times in this thread that I wouldnt have shot the dude!!! Are ya fucken retarded or just simple?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You re going to leave your kid in the store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I dont have a kid.
Click to expand...


That's why your hypothetical blows up in your face!  The couple had a kid in the store.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What did I say that was different?  Are you capable of reading on at least  4th grade level?



There is no leave it to the DA


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The store owner's testimony says as much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just went back and read the story again....
> I didnt see anything like you're stating.
> Some other link I'm missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the interview from the store clerk?
> 
> *The video of the shooting pretty much clears the shooter.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Someone pushes you down and backs away and your response is to kill him?  I hope you have a pretty mouth, because it might keep you alive in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one stupid mother fucker.
> I have said at least three times in this thread that I wouldnt have shot the dude!!! Are ya fucken retarded or just simple?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It doesn't clear the shooter!  I don't know what you are watching, but it wasn't this incident if that is what you think.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That's why your hypothetical blows up in your face!  The couple had a kid in the store.



If I had a kid he would have exited the store with me, got in the car and left with us.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say that was different?  Are you capable of reading on at least  4th grade level?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no leave it to the DA
Click to expand...


Where is your link?

I can post opinionated bullshit all day long!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why your hypothetical blows up in your face!  The couple had a kid in the store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a kid he would have exited the store with me, got in the car and left with us.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right!

If a frog could fly, he wouldn't bump his ass! 

That is why your hypothetical fails again.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Marion Morrison said:


> A location the shooter will soon become familiar with: Lake Butler.



Why there?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Its not my opinion.     The matter went to hearing on charges where an SYG case was presented and the judge dismissed it.  It is how FL law works.

Had the judge not dismissed it would have gone to trial.

SYG allows judges to dismiss self-defense cases pre-trial if the defender was under going lawful activity and had a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Tom Horn said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's dependent on what the other guy might do next...the black guy didn't turn and walk away after he flattened the smaller white guy....he continued menacing him...justified shooting.
Click to expand...


Where is he going to walk to in the few seconds it took for the shooter to kill him?  He was standing next to the car, wasn't he?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That is why your hypothetical fails again.



The presence of a hypothetical child bears no relevancy to my wife's or my avoidance actions with immediately available defensive suppressive fire if required.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Where is he going to walk to in the few seconds it took for the shooter to kill him?  He was standing next to the car, wasn't he?



To get his own weapon ?  Flank ?  You just don't know.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
Click to expand...


We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!

*"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*

That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law

Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is he going to walk to in the few seconds it took for the shooter to kill him?  He was standing next to the car, wasn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get his own weapon ?  Flank ?  You just don't know.
Click to expand...


He backed up, away from the man he pushed to the ground. I already established that most of you cannot read, but is it because you are also blind?


----------



## PredFan

Well, I will leave it to the lawyers and judges to decide. What I believe is irrelevant unless I’m on the jury. I just know that I would not have put myself in either situation. I take my responsibility as an armed citizen seriously.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why your hypothetical fails again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of a hypothetical child bears no relevancy to my wife's or my avoidance actions with immediately available defensive suppressive fire if required.
Click to expand...


You are attempting a false equivalency.  Just admit that you fucked up and move on, you keyboard commando.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

HereWeGoAgain said:


> The only problem with that is she was exiting the vehicle when her boyfriend was approaching showing she wasnt afraid.
> Most people would lock their doors.


That's not necessarily true.  I would probably exit the vehicle as well if I could do so without putting myself in closer proximity to the problem.  If I feel like I'm about to be assaulted, I do not want to be sitting or confined to the inside of a vehicle where I can't easily defend myself or take cover.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> He backed up, away from the man he pushed to the ground. I already established that most of you cannot read, but is it because you are also blind?



So once you attack with deadly force you open yourself to further defensive action to insure your attack has ceased.

Blink of an eye.

Keep your dick beaters off of people no matter how much you dislike their words.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> A location the shooter will soon become familiar with: Lake Butler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why there?
Click to expand...


Because he's in FL, dear Admiral, and that is the prison processing hub.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You are attempting a false equivalency.  Just admit that you fucked up and move on, you keyboard commando.



How so specifically ?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the DA may pursue charges they have to prove the guy wasnt in fear for his life.
> Pretty tough case to make.
Click to expand...


That's not a tough case to make at all.  Since he was not being attacked any longer, it is pretty cut and dried that he should be charged.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That's not a tough case to make at all.  Since he was not being attacked any longer, it is pretty cut and dried that he should be charged.



Sure it is.  The SYG defense was upheld,  Case dismissed.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
Click to expand...


  Holy shit!!! Again?
I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
    Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are attempting a false equivalency.  Just admit that you fucked up and move on, you keyboard commando.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so specifically ?
Click to expand...


You have already demonstrated that you would not understand any explanation anyway.  However, I will try one more time to penetrate that piece of concrete you carry around where your head should be.  You tried injecting a hypothetical situation into a real life scenario with actual facts that don't match your hypothetical.  You might as well have said he shot the guy because your wife didn't cooperate the night before when you were feeling frisky. 

That is a false equivalency.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with that is she was exiting the vehicle when her boyfriend was approaching showing she wasnt afraid.
> Most people would lock their doors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not necessarily true.  I would probably exit the vehicle as well if I could do so without putting myself in closer proximity to the problem.  If I feel like I'm about to be assaulted, I do not want to be sitting or confined to the inside of a vehicle where I can't easily defend myself or take cover.
Click to expand...


  WTF?

She was driving and got out of the vehicle on the same side the dude was.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a tough case to make at all.  Since he was not being attacked any longer, it is pretty cut and dried that he should be charged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  The SYG defense was upheld,  Case dismissed.
Click to expand...


Who was it upheld by?  I showed in a link the the case would be referred to the state's attorney.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty of at least 2nd Degree murder.
> 
> I am a CCW holder in Florida and I know the law. It will take some masterful lawyering, on the part of his defense attorney to keep him from heavy punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
Click to expand...


Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!

My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You have already demonstrated that you would not understand any explanation anyway.  However, I will try one more time to penetrate that piece of concrete you carry around where your head should be.  You tried injecting a hypothetical situation into a real life scenario with actual facts that don't match your hypothetical.  You might as well have said he shot the guy because your wife didn't cooperate the night before when you were feeling frisky.
> 
> That is a false equivalency.



Thank you for your explanation.

I gave my anticipated response should i have found myself in the same situation with someone verbally haranguing my wife while i was inside the store.   I didn't account for a child, because I do not have a child.    However,  I have had a child in the past and believe, in the same situation, I would have exited the store with my child and proceeded with same actions.  

I am at a loss to understand the false equivalency.   But it is a neat word to use.  I suppose.


----------



## Marion Morrison

The DA will charge the guy. My guess is he'll plead to whatever is below manslaughter and do 5-6 yrs.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> EGR one said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to use the reasonable man standard to determine whether the fear was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.  Personally, I do not think that a reasonable man would have shot his attacker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree..... you are simply arguing with a woman and some guy comes out and violently attacks you....  is there a kick coming next, how about a weapon about to come out.....  you weren't the guy on the ground, you didn't see the expression on the face of the attacker or his body language..... fear of death or bodily harm is a lot different after you have been violently attacked and adrenaline hits your system.
Click to expand...


I suggest you watch the video again, or for the first time because none of what you said was happening.


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI

OODA_Loop said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the attacker after pushing the man to the ground was shot by the man on the ground and died in the story in front of his five year old son. The attacker BACKED away once the man on the ground pulled out his gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son part irrelevent.
> 
> You have some traction on the backing part.   Slightly.
> 
> But it was not a retreat and you dont know what was said .... dude on ground was reasonable at the time to conclude attack would continue
> 
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes
Click to expand...

You are correct.  The only relevant part is him backing away.  And whether or not it was ‘reasonable’ for the shooter to view the threat to be immediate will be up to the D.A., not a jury


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already demonstrated that you would not understand any explanation anyway.  However, I will try one more time to penetrate that piece of concrete you carry around where your head should be.  You tried injecting a hypothetical situation into a real life scenario with actual facts that don't match your hypothetical.  You might as well have said he shot the guy because your wife didn't cooperate the night before when you were feeling frisky.
> 
> That is a false equivalency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your explanation.
> 
> I gave my anticipated response should i have found myself in the same situation with someone verbally haranguing my wife while i was inside the store.   I didn't account for a child, because I do not have a child.    However,  I have had a child in the past and believe, in the same situation, I would have exited the store with my child and proceeded with same actions.
> 
> I am at a loss to understand the false equivalency.   But it is a neat word to use.  I suppose.
Click to expand...


False means not true.  Get it?  They are nowhere near the same situations.  You are correct, some of us who actually graduated from high school understand the meanings of words and actually use them in conversation.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the law..... you have to be in fear of death or grievious bodily harm.....  and since the attacker attacked the guy violently and then kept advancing..... it was on him....not the victim.
Click to expand...


You are the only poster on this thread who sees the man advancing.  Why is that?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if the attacker has a record...the story, as usual, doesn't say anything but tragic things about the attacker.
Click to expand...


To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make?"  None of that would be admissible in court.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

cwise76 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was forcibly shoved. The dude went flying.
> I wouldnt have shot the dude personally. Once he drew his weapon the guy backed off.
> Get the plate number and call the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree
> 
> But the question is, does a shove justify lethal force if there is no further aggression ?
> 
> Both acted poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know wether more aggression was coming or not?  Ever been kicked in the head when you are on the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
> Because he was unarmed, because he was five feet away and backing away when he saw a gun, because he shoved the guy away from his girlfriend instead of punching him
> 
> Having a gun means might makes right
> It SHOULD mean you have to show responsible judgement or pay the consequences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to show us where having a CCW gives you special exemption from criminal charges if you misuse your firearm?  Based on your logic every police shooting ever should result in the criminal prosecution of every cop who shoots a bad guy.
> 
> Sure you want to try and use that particular bit of logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another good point. A license to carry is not a license to kill
Click to expand...

No one says it does.

In Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t apply only if one has a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm.


----------



## JoeMoma

HereWeGoAgain said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the dude who got trigger happy and murdererd that guy is going away to the slammer. GUARANTEED
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally yes.
> Personally I wouldnt have shot the dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. You’d be in prison. Watch the video again and dig deep; you know in your heart of hearts that encounter didn’t warrant the use of deadly force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the guy is going to walk.
> Not that the guy should have shot him.
> When the cops come right out and say they're not going to charge him it's a pretty good indication how the DA will go.
Click to expand...

Now that the incident has hit the news, the public outcry may force the DA to bring it to trial.  Kind of like Zimmerman.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they already said no charges will be filed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
Click to expand...


  Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.


----------



## JoeMoma

sealybobo said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just ran this scenario by my dad. He said of course he’d shoot someone who violently threw him to the ground. What more does he need to do to me before I get to shoot?
> 
> I think the message behind stand your ground is keep your hands off people
Click to expand...

Your Dad!  That settles it then.  Time to close the thread.


----------



## JoeMoma

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why your hypothetical blows up in your face!  The couple had a kid in the store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a kid he would have exited the store with me, got in the car and left with us.
Click to expand...

It didn't happen the way you say you would have handled it.  We all know the situation didn't pan out the way it should have!


----------



## bodecea

OODA_Loop said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to high school. Everyone accused of a critical.e has the right to a jury trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know how wrong you are and are condescending to boot.
> 
> Sorry your girl lost.
Click to expand...

"Sorry your girl lost."   Family attack?


----------



## bodecea

HereWeGoAgain said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when do five year olds pack heat?
Click to expand...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the shooter has a possible history of initiating confrontations is bad for him.  If that is indeed true, then his shooting of the victim might very well be construed as murder.  If the claims are true, then it is clear that he was a co-beligerent.  Actions have consequences, and if was regularly spoiling for a fight, then he is in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope its over.  No charges.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep saying that?  It is a bald-faced lie!  He was not arrested.  That doesn't mean he will not be charged.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not going to trial
Click to expand...


Again, a link was provided to show the case was being referred to the state's attorney.  You don;t know that.

What grade were you in when you were drop-kicked out of school?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  The Statute of limitations on Murder is FOREVER.  If the AG's office determines at ANY TIME, in the future, that there is probable cause for a murder charge, they can file one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already adjudicated by a judge.
Click to expand...


I have asked this before and you had an epic fail.  Where is your link?

Want to try again?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder has no Statute of Limitations dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This matter is closed by court action and charging would be double jeopardy,  um dude.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  No trial was held, and he was not found not guilty, so no double jeopardy.  Where is your link, for about the 4th time being asked?


----------



## sealybobo

kaz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just ran this scenario by my dad. He said of course he’d shoot someone who violently threw him to the ground. What more does he need to do to me before I get to shoot?
> 
> I think the message behind stand your ground is keep your hands off people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mention the part to your dad where in the scenario he is in the parking lot screaming at the guys wife when he came out of the store?
Click to expand...

Yes. Then he back peddled but still he had no right to escalate from words to physical. Even if someone’s screaming at my wife I don’t have the right to punch the screamer. You ever argue with someone’s mother or wife?

Like I said the lesson should be don’t touch people but some people deserve to be punched. But if they have a gun they might also have the right to strike back the only way they can.

I would find the guy guilty.


----------



## sealybobo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link...
> 
> This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said. "The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think I said then you have this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the Sheriff has decided not to charge him based on his interpretation of Stand your Ground
> 
> The State Attorney May interpret differently and respond to public pressure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the DA may pursue charges they have to prove the guy wasnt in fear for his life.
> Pretty tough case to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can’t prove if he was afraid. Of course he was. But was it justifiable homocide? No.
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cops think otherwise.
> Whether the DA does remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Zimmerman and Trayvon


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  If what you claim were true martins killer would have never gone to trial.  Same State, same laws apply.  Good luck with your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No judge ruled against Zimmerman at the SYG hearing.   So it went to full trial.  Which upheld the SYG defense.
Click to expand...


Where is your link for this hearing?  You don't have one, do you?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the same situation.  There was no charge originally brought.  Then there was because of public outcry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zim waived the SYG trail.
> 
> This guy did not.  So he put on his SYG defense for the judge who dismissed the case
Click to expand...


When and where?  They did this in a matter of hours?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

OODA_Loop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in this initial presentation.  He hasn't had a prelim, he hasn't been arrested.  Thus your claim of double jeopardy is ridiculous.  Like I said before.  If the AG's office is able to come up with further evidence that shows this was premeditated they can refile and get the ball rolling again.
> 
> You need to stop watching TV criminal shows.  They are not accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not under Florida SYG law.
Click to expand...

And not in Florida.

Again, after the Zimmerman debacle, which made State prosecutors look incompetent and ridiculous, criminal charges aren’t going to be brought against a shooter in a self-defense situation unless it’s beyond a doubt clear that the shooter acted unlawfully.

The Sheriff’s Office isn’t charging the shooter, the State will do the same.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cops think otherwise.
> Whether the DA does remains to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Went to SYG hearing.   Its done.  No DA.
Click to expand...


You went to Clearwater FL to attend a hearing that probably has not taken place yet?

Must be some good drugs!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say that was different?  Are you capable of reading on at least  4th grade level?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no leave it to the DA
Click to expand...


The links provided say otherwise.

Have a nice day, dumbass!


----------



## G.T.

wow ooda loop rlly doesnt understand what double jeopardy means, eh?

its a pretty basic concept


----------



## sealybobo

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


Why are people parking in a handicap spot?

The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.

This shooter should be guilty.

Floridians need to send a message or 2.

1. Only shoot when absolutely necessary 
2. Don’t start trouble or look for trouble when you have a concealed weapons permit. You aren’t the police.

I could go out and provoke someone to push me so I can stand my ground too.


----------



## sealybobo

I want black guys with ccw permits to go hit on white guys girlfriends. Don’t touch but verbally be really aggressive and disrespect the white guy. When he pushes you blow him away and claim stand your ground


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> He backed up, away from the man he pushed to the ground. I already established that most of you cannot read, but is it because you are also blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once you attack with deadly force you open yourself to further defensive action to insure your attack has ceased.
> 
> Blink of an eye.
> 
> Keep your dick beaters off of people no matter how much you dislike their words.
Click to expand...


Pushing someone to the ground and obviously not injuring them does not justify the use of deadly force, especially when the threat has ended.  Pulling the gun de-escalated the situation.  Pulling the trigger means he will probably be enjoying the accomodations in Starke, FL after he is tried and convicted.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Pretty sure”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
Click to expand...


You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,


----------



## cwise76

sealybobo said:


> I want black guys with ccw permits to go hit on white guys girlfriends. Don’t touch but verbally be really aggressive and disrespect the white guy. When he pushes you blow him away and claim stand your ground





Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
Click to expand...

This case isn’t over and the guy isn’t cleared. You can’t just shoot and kill somebody like that.

The video is clear to me: The boyfriend came to the aide of his GF who was being screamed at by a known antagonist(and possible racist so maybe he was using the N word)pushes him away and backed up. The guy with gun pulled the trigger as the  BF was backing away. Again cold blooded murder and I hope that they lock his ass up.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?
Click to expand...

Pardon me?


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
Click to expand...

There you go.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Florida man fatally shot another over a parking space — and it was legal. Here’s why.
> 
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> WATCH: Pinellas County Sheriff says no charges for 'Stand Your Ground' shooter
> 
> Then you have this one....
> Stand Your Ground: Shooter in parking space dispute will not be arrested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
Click to expand...


  I posted a mile back that there was a possibility they'd let the higher ups decide.
  But at that point the cops said they werent going to charge him.
I posted three links saying the cops werent going to charge him and one that said it's not a done deal.
   WTF more do ya want?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted a mile back that there was a possibility they'd let the higher ups decide.
> But at that point the cops said they werent going to charge him.
> I posted three links saying the cops werent going to charge him and one that said it's not a done deal.
> WTF more do ya want?
Click to expand...


I suggest you reread your comments.  Have a nice day!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted a mile back that there was a possibility they'd let the higher ups decide.
> But at that point the cops said they werent going to charge him.
> I posted three links saying the cops werent going to charge him and one that said it's not a done deal.
> WTF more do ya want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you reread your comments.  Have a nice day!
Click to expand...


  I suggest you re read my links.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted a mile back that there was a possibility they'd let the higher ups decide.
> But at that point the cops said they werent going to charge him.
> I posted three links saying the cops werent going to charge him and one that said it's not a done deal.
> WTF more do ya want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you reread your comments.  Have a nice day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you re read my links.
Click to expand...


I am not the one claiming things that contradict your own links.  Again, have a nice day!  Your education on this topic is complete.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted a mile back that there was a possibility they'd let the higher ups decide.
> But at that point the cops said they werent going to charge him.
> I posted three links saying the cops werent going to charge him and one that said it's not a done deal.
> WTF more do ya want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you reread your comments.  Have a nice day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you re read my links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one claiming things that contradict your own links.  Again, have a nice day!  Your education on this topic is complete.
Click to expand...


    Maybe next time read the whole thread.


----------



## sealybobo

cwise76 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want black guys with ccw permits to go hit on white guys girlfriends. Don’t touch but verbally be really aggressive and disrespect the white guy. When he pushes you blow him away and claim stand your ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a serious educational crisis in America.  Far too many of you dumbasses cannot read!
> 
> *"The sheriff announced the case will be sent to the state attorney's office for review."*
> 
> That is taken directly from your 2nd link:
> Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law
> 
> Now, where does that say that he will not stand trial?  The police might not have arrested him, but they did not clear him either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This case isn’t over and the guy isn’t cleared. You can’t just shoot and kill somebody like that.
> 
> The video is clear to me: The boyfriend came to the aide of his GF who was being screamed at by a known antagonist(and possible racist so maybe he was using the N word)pushes him away and backed up. The guy with gun pulled the trigger as the  BF was backing away. Again cold blooded murder and I hope that they lock his ass up.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I also hope the message is being received that you can’t physically attack someone like that guy did. He didn’t need to push him that hard. That was wrong and why right wing cowards passed stand your ground. It’s a bully law. It allows weak gun owners to defend themselves. Kick sand in my face? Eat lead bully.


----------



## sealybobo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in this initial presentation.  He hasn't had a prelim, he hasn't been arrested.  Thus your claim of double jeopardy is ridiculous.  Like I said before.  If the AG's office is able to come up with further evidence that shows this was premeditated they can refile and get the ball rolling again.
> 
> You need to stop watching TV criminal shows.  They are not accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not under Florida SYG law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And not in Florida.
> 
> Again, after the Zimmerman debacle, which made State prosecutors look incompetent and ridiculous, criminal charges aren’t going to be brought against a shooter in a self-defense situation unless it’s beyond a doubt clear that the shooter acted unlawfully.
> 
> The Sheriff’s Office isn’t charging the shooter, the State will do the same.
Click to expand...

The tape clearly show he didn’t have to shoot.

If this isn’t a slam dunk I can see why Zimmerman got off. No tape


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a mile back that there was a possibility they'd let the higher ups decide.
> But at that point the cops said they werent going to charge him.
> I posted three links saying the cops werent going to charge him and one that said it's not a done deal.
> WTF more do ya want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you reread your comments.  Have a nice day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you re read my links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one claiming things that contradict your own links.  Again, have a nice day!  Your education on this topic is complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe next time read the whole thread.
Click to expand...


I read every single post.  Did you?


----------



## sealybobo

Let’s be honest about stand your ground. It’s a law so pussies can’t be abused. But we all know the line is if you had to shoot or not. This guy didn’t have to shoot. The only reason it’s in question is because it was caught on tape. That makes this a bad law because this tape should make it obvious the shooter didn’t have to shoot.

If that doesn’t matter then this law is flawed


----------



## beagle9

sealybobo said:


> I want black guys with ccw permits to go hit on white guys girlfriends. Don’t touch but verbally be really aggressive and disrespect the white guy. When he pushes you blow him away and claim stand your ground


So you want a race war is what you want ??

Didn't watch the video yet, and so I ask was their two different races involved ?

Guess I will have to watch the video or read the prior post in order to see what drove you to such a radical opinion or position on the issue in this way.

Just by reading some comments early on, it is my opinion that the guy who got pushed, and all due to his highly emotional state of mind caused him to feel that he can't ever be challenged or pushed in life, and that no one had better try him or else, basically is what I'm going on in the next opinion I will give. 

1. This kind of person needs no gun or a carry permit at all but to late for that now.

2. If he has any priors, then that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt about his emotional state of mind as a pattern, where as his carry permit, and his gun's should have been confiscated before now or otherwise this poor chap (who got more than he expected), would still be alive today.  Killed a man after being pushed onto the ground ??  Uhh nope that don't cut it.  Pull the gun in order to make the attacker retreat I say yes, and then if the attacker lunges towards (the one with the gun after he the attacker sees the drawn gun), then yes kill him or wound him is all that's left.


----------



## sealybobo

beagle9 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want black guys with ccw permits to go hit on white guys girlfriends. Don’t touch but verbally be really aggressive and disrespect the white guy. When he pushes you blow him away and claim stand your ground
> 
> 
> 
> So you want a race war is what you want ??
> 
> Didn't watch the video yet, and so I ask was their two different races involved ?
> 
> Guess I will have to watch the video or read the prior post in order to see what drove you to such a radical opinion or position on the issue in this way.
> 
> Just by reading some comments early on, it is my opinion that the guy who got pushed, and all due to his highly emotional state of mind caused him to feel that he can't ever be challenged or pushed in life, and that no one had better try him or else, basically is what I'm going on in the next opinion I will give.
> 
> 1. This kind of person needs no gun or a carry permit at all but to late for that now.
> 
> 2. If he has any priors, then that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt about his emotional state of mind as a pattern, where as his carry permit, and his gun's should have been confiscated before now or otherwise this poor chap (who got more than he expected), would still be alive today.  Killed a man after being pushed onto the ground ??  Uhh nope that don't cut it.  Pull the gun in order to make the attacker retreat I say yes, and then if the attacker lunges towards (the one with the gun after he the attacker sees the drawn gun), then yes kill him or wound him is all that's left.
Click to expand...

I agree


----------



## beagle9

sealybobo said:


> Let’s be honest about stand your ground. It’s a law so pussies can’t be abused. But we all know the line is if you had to shoot or not. This guy didn’t have to shoot. The only reason it’s in question is because it was caught on tape. That makes this a bad law because this tape should make it obvious the shooter didn’t have to shoot.
> 
> If that doesn’t matter then this law is flawed


All laws are flawed... That's why we have trials, lawyers, courts etc. LOL


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## bodecea

Kosh said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because this about the son that Obama never had.
Click to expand...

There it is again.


----------



## bodecea

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks black to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, the video is not very good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's black alright.
Click to expand...

A thug then?


----------



## RandomPoster

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shover  created the situation.  Until then it was all verbal.
Click to expand...


  We have no idea what he said.  A blanket statement that it was only verbal is absurd.  If a man walks up to another man screaming in his face that his wife is a whore and that he should take her home to show her a real man.  He deserves to get his ass kicked.  What if a man tells another man his 15 old daughter has a nice a** and he'd like to f*** it because he likes them at that age?  Are those only words?  Should the father try to reason with him?  The idea that you can say whatever you want in whatever manner you want and not expect to get hit is ridiculous.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Let’s be honest about stand your ground. It’s a law so pussies can’t be abused. ....




You think it’s a law just for you? Does it really prevent you from being abused?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

bodecea said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks black to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, the video is not very good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's black alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A thug then?
Click to expand...


  Who said that?


----------



## kaz

sealybobo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just ran this scenario by my dad. He said of course he’d shoot someone who violently threw him to the ground. What more does he need to do to me before I get to shoot?
> 
> I think the message behind stand your ground is keep your hands off people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mention the part to your dad where in the scenario he is in the parking lot screaming at the guys wife when he came out of the store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Then he back peddled but still he had no right to escalate from words to physical. Even if someone’s screaming at my wife I don’t have the right to punch the screamer. You ever argue with someone’s mother or wife?
> 
> Like I said the lesson should be don’t touch people but some people deserve to be punched. But if they have a gun they might also have the right to strike back the only way they can.
> 
> I would find the guy guilty.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that your father said that if he was screaming at a woman in a parking lot and her boyfriend came out and shoved him, your father said he'd waste his sorry ass because he deserves to die and he wouldn't think twice.

Just making sure I understand


----------



## beagle9

After reviewing the video, it appears by the witness accounts and/or recollection of the store owner,  that this guy Draca (?) and his past stalking of that parking spot was actually the culprit in the case. 

Not a case for stand your ground at all. It sounded as if the guy was trying to start trouble in a pattern time line according to the store owner in which might just turn out to be a premeditated act of violence that he (Draca), has now committed on the poor guy for whom his only crime was violating a handicap space ?? Good grief.

Getting in a woman's face while her boyfriend or husband was near, and verbally assaulting her was sure to bring about the reaction it did, and now Draca will pay the consequences for his idiocy.  I hope he gets life if a pattern is proven.


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed
> 
> What was said ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks black to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, the video is not very good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's black alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A thug then?
Click to expand...






Why are you such a racist?  There was no implication that he was a thug because he was black.  Why do you have to always go down that road?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pardon me?
Click to expand...


You're pardoned


----------



## OODA_Loop

I WAS INCORRECT  - THE OTHER THREAD INDICATED THIS HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A SYG HEARING.  IT HAS NOT GONE TO THAT HEARING,


----------



## JoeMoma

OODA_Loop said:


> I WAS INCORRECT  - THE OTHER THREAD INDICATED THIS HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A SYG HEARING.  IT HAS NOT GONE TO THAT HEARING,


Thanks!
The shooting happened just two days ago.  Court hearings don't happen so fast.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks black to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, the video is not very good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's black alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A thug then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you such a racist?  There was no implication that he was a thug because he was black.  Why do you have to always go down that road?
Click to expand...


----------



## OODA_Loop

My premise remains the same.  In a self-defensive shooting or other lethal force you are allowed to present a SYG defense to a judge who can settle the matter without further legal action. (*in Florida)


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> I WAS INCORRECT  - THE OTHER THREAD INDICATED THIS HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A SYG HEARING.  IT HAS NOT GONE TO THAT HEARING,



 Yeah I know what you mean....
I've adjusted my views as the facts come in but all I hear about is my original post.
   I hate it when people jump into a thread and start shit before reading the whole thing.
     It's been particularly bad in this thread.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> My premise remains the same.  In a self-defensive shooting or other lethal force you are allowed to present a SYG defense to a judge who can settle the matter without further legal action. (*in Florida)



    My take at this point is the guy was within his rights to shoot but dont think he really had to.


----------



## toobfreak

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:




Absolutely unjustified, and the shooter will fry for this.  The attacker was not armed, was not threatening him after the shove, and was seen backing away.  At no time or in any way was the man's life in danger or could he claim he thought was in danger.  The brandishing of the gun alone ended the danger.  The shooter committed murder.  You can't just kill someone for simple assault.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
Click to expand...

Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.


----------



## cwise76

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
Click to expand...

?


----------



## OODA_Loop

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WAS INCORRECT  - THE OTHER THREAD INDICATED THIS HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A SYG HEARING.  IT HAS NOT GONE TO THAT HEARING,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I know what you mean....
> I've adjusted my views as the facts come in but all I hear about is my original post.
> I hate it when people jump into a thread and start shit before reading the whole thing.
> It's been particularly bad in this thread.
Click to expand...



I was wrong in thinking the SYG hearing had happened,     The take away is keep to yourself.  You never know who can and will seriously ruin your day if you get stupid.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WAS INCORRECT  - THE OTHER THREAD INDICATED THIS HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A SYG HEARING.  IT HAS NOT GONE TO THAT HEARING,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I know what you mean....
> I've adjusted my views as the facts come in but all I hear about is my original post.
> I hate it when people jump into a thread and start shit before reading the whole thing.
> It's been particularly bad in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was wrong in thinking the SYG hearing had happened,     The take away is keep to yourself.  You never know who can and will seriously ruin your day if you get stupid.
Click to expand...


  They're not ruining my day by any stretch.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> I WAS INCORRECT  - THE OTHER THREAD INDICATED THIS HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A SYG HEARING.  IT HAS NOT GONE TO THAT HEARING,



Thank you!  How many times were you asked to verify that assertion because it did not seem possible?


----------



## 2aguy

cwise76 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> He shoved the old man to the ground violently.
> Thats about as in your face as you can get.
> Tough case...personally I wouldnt have shot the dude just to avoid the potential legal ramifications being in Florida or not.
> But then I wouldnt have attacked an old man either.
> 
> Who knows,maybe the guy said something that made the guy think it was in his best interest to cap the guy. He didnt seem inclined to shoot at first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
Click to expand...



Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeMoma said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the dude who got trigger happy and murdererd that guy is going away to the slammer. GUARANTEED
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the first time this clown has confronted people at this store, over a parking space. But it will be the last. Knocking someone down who doesn’t see it coming is assault. The victim has no way to know what the perpetrators intentions are beyond having already been assaulted. Clean shoot. And another wannabe bad ass is off the street. Who he died in front of is of little relevance. Who knows? Maybe the 5 year old will learn not to make the same mistake that got his father killed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally yes.
> Personally I wouldnt have shot the dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. You’d be in prison. Watch the video again and dig deep; you know in your heart of hearts that encounter didn’t warrant the use of deadly force
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the guy is going to walk.
> Not that the guy should have shot him.
> When the cops come right out and say they're not going to charge him it's a pretty good indication how the DA will go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that the incident has hit the news, the public outcry may force the DA to bring it to trial.  Kind of like Zimmerman.
Click to expand...



And how did that go?


----------



## 2aguy

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the law..... you have to be in fear of death or grievious bodily harm.....  and since the attacker attacked the guy violently and then kept advancing..... it was on him....not the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only poster on this thread who sees the man advancing.  Why is that?
Click to expand...



You have to watch the video, he hikes up his pants and steps forward..... he only steps back as the man points the gun at him.... and by then it is too late...


----------



## 2aguy

OODA_Loop said:


> My premise remains the same.  In a self-defensive shooting or other lethal force you are allowed to present a SYG defense to a judge who can settle the matter without further legal action. (*in Florida)




It may be, but he was on the ground, Stand Your Ground won't apply.


----------



## 2aguy

toobfreak said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely unjustified, and the shooter will fry for this.  The attacker was not armed, was not threatening him after the shove, and was seen backing away.  At no time or in any way was the man's life in danger or could he claim he thought was in danger.  The brandishing of the gun alone ended the danger.  The shooter committed murder.  You can't just kill someone for simple assault.
Click to expand...



It isn't that simple.....  your view from the video is not the same as the guy on the ground.


----------



## Lewdog

Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.

Second Amendment supporters should be saying that this guy goes to jail for murder... because it is actions like his that actually makes their stance look bad.  The guy on the ground shot a man that had backed away from him even before he pulled out the gun, and had his hands at his sides.

There really is no argument in this instance.  It's not even close.


----------



## 2aguy

Lewdog said:


> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> Second Amendment supporters should be saying that this guy goes to jail for murder... because it is actions like his that actually makes their stance look bad.  The guy on the ground shot a man that had backed away from him even before he pulled out the gun, and had his hands at his sides.
> 
> There really is no argument in this instance.  It's not even close.




No.....  you have to believe you are in imminent danger of death or grevious bodily injury and the attacker doesn't have to be armed, they simply need to have an over whelming ability to inflict harm to you.... and sorry, the time between getting violently attacked and the shooting is so close that the claim of self defense is going to be hard to beat.


----------



## Lewdog

2aguy said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> Second Amendment supporters should be saying that this guy goes to jail for murder... because it is actions like his that actually makes their stance look bad.  The guy on the ground shot a man that had backed away from him even before he pulled out the gun, and had his hands at his sides.
> 
> There really is no argument in this instance.  It's not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.....  you have to believe you are in imminent danger of death or grevious bodily injury and the attacker doesn't have to be armed, they simply need to have an over whelming ability to inflict harm to you.... and sorry, the time between getting violently attacked and the shooting is so close that the claim of self defense is going to be hard to beat.
Click to expand...


Read the entire thing I posted.  The guy that pushed him down was not only NOT ARMED, he wasn't even continuing to attack him, had backed up, and his arms were down at his side and not in an aggressive position.  The guy had backed up EVEN BEFORE the guy pulled the gun.

READ THE ENTIRE POST.

I know these laws.  I've had to deal with writing Use of Force Reports.  I've studied lord knows how many laws involving self-defense and use of deadly force.  This shooter is toast.  This isn't even close.  Just the icing on the cake is the fact HE HAD a reputation of trying to push people's buttons and looking for confrontation.


----------



## 2aguy

Lewdog said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> Second Amendment supporters should be saying that this guy goes to jail for murder... because it is actions like his that actually makes their stance look bad.  The guy on the ground shot a man that had backed away from him even before he pulled out the gun, and had his hands at his sides.
> 
> There really is no argument in this instance.  It's not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.....  you have to believe you are in imminent danger of death or grevious bodily injury and the attacker doesn't have to be armed, they simply need to have an over whelming ability to inflict harm to you.... and sorry, the time between getting violently attacked and the shooting is so close that the claim of self defense is going to be hard to beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the entire thing I posted.  The guy that pushed him down was not only NOT ARMED, he wasn't even continuing to attack him, had backed up, and his arms were down at his side and not in an aggressive position.  The guy had backed up EVEN BEFORE the guy pulled the gun.
> 
> READ THE ENTIRE POST.
> 
> I know these laws.  I've had to deal with writing Use of Force Reports.  I've studied lord knows how many laws involving self-defense and use of deadly force.  This shooter is toast.  This isn't even close.  Just the icing on the cake is the fact HE HAD a reputation of trying to push people's buttons and looking for confrontation.
Click to expand...



No, the shooter is not toast......   no matter what he did in the past, he didn't attack anyone, the other guy did..... and the time between the initial violent push, drawing the gun and firing the gun isn't going to be the big issue you think it is.....   if you actually studied self defense you would know about the effect of adrenaline on your vision and time awareness.....


----------



## BlackSand

.​
*Pineapple*​
.​


----------



## Lewdog

2aguy said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> Second Amendment supporters should be saying that this guy goes to jail for murder... because it is actions like his that actually makes their stance look bad.  The guy on the ground shot a man that had backed away from him even before he pulled out the gun, and had his hands at his sides.
> 
> There really is no argument in this instance.  It's not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.....  you have to believe you are in imminent danger of death or grevious bodily injury and the attacker doesn't have to be armed, they simply need to have an over whelming ability to inflict harm to you.... and sorry, the time between getting violently attacked and the shooting is so close that the claim of self defense is going to be hard to beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the entire thing I posted.  The guy that pushed him down was not only NOT ARMED, he wasn't even continuing to attack him, had backed up, and his arms were down at his side and not in an aggressive position.  The guy had backed up EVEN BEFORE the guy pulled the gun.
> 
> READ THE ENTIRE POST.
> 
> I know these laws.  I've had to deal with writing Use of Force Reports.  I've studied lord knows how many laws involving self-defense and use of deadly force.  This shooter is toast.  This isn't even close.  Just the icing on the cake is the fact HE HAD a reputation of trying to push people's buttons and looking for confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the shooter is not toast......   no matter what he did in the past, he didn't attack anyone, the other guy did..... and the time between the initial violent push, drawing the gun and firing the gun isn't going to be the big issue you think it is.....   if you actually studied self defense you would know about the effect of adrenaline on your vision and time awareness.....
Click to expand...



If you think someone pushing you to the ground is justification for lethal force, you are a prime example of why there needs to be stricter gun laws.  Congrats, you have just invalidated every single stat and gun article you have posted, and instead validated every single person that has said you are a gun nut who lacks the reasoning and decision making skills to be a responsible gun owner.

By definition, the man that was pushed down was NOT in imminent danger.  He could clearly see the man that pushed him down.  The man was not even in range to continue to attack him, the man didn't have ANY KIND OF WEAPON, and wasn't even in any type of hostile stance.

Thanks for validating what I've been saying about you for a long time now.


----------



## strollingbones

i know the laws in nc changed from ...having to retreat as far as you could...to i will just shot them thru the door....


----------



## Lewdog

strollingbones said:


> i know the laws in nc changed from ...having to retreat as far as you could...to i will just shot them thru the door....



This didn't happen on his property.  This was in a public parking lot at a convenient store.


----------



## strollingbones

i know that....the shooting was legally a good one...morally it sucked...


----------



## Lewdog

Wow, sure is a lot of people here who don't understand what a Stand Your Ground Law really is.  No wonder the U.S. has so much gun violence.


----------



## BlackSand

Lewdog said:


> Wow, sure is a lot of people here who don't understand what a Stand Your Ground Law really is.  No wonder the U.S. has so much gun violence.



The Pinellas County Sheriff does and said the shooting "_fell between the bookends" _...
of the Stand Your Ground Law.

The law doesn't actually give a shit whether or not you agree with it ... 

.​


----------



## Lewdog

BlackSand said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, sure is a lot of people here who don't understand what a Stand Your Ground Law really is.  No wonder the U.S. has so much gun violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pinellas County Sheriff does and said the shooting "_fell between the bookends" _...
> of the Stand Your Ground Law.
> 
> The law doesn't actually give a shit whether or not you agree with it ...
> 
> .​
Click to expand...


That shooting does not fit the law.  Period.


----------



## strollingbones

okay let me explain the difference.....before you had to retreat as much as you could and then defend yourself in court....
now there is no mandate to retreat...if you feel your life is in danger...you may shoot and its up to the prosecutor to make the case that you had no right to stand your ground....now please tell me what we dont understand?


----------



## strollingbones

it does fit the stand your ground....the dude came out and just shoved the hell outta him....bad move...lets not forget that illegal parking is what started this all...illegal parking by the women now crying for justice...(illegal handicap parking is a pet peeve of mine) morally it was wrong, the dude was backing up....he knew he lost that battle he just didnt know how badly


----------



## Lewdog

strollingbones said:


> okay let me explain the difference.....before you had to retreat as much as you could and then defend yourself in court....
> now there is no mandate to retreat...if you feel your life is in danger...you may shoot and its up to the prosecutor to make the case that you had no right to stand your ground....now please tell me what we dont understand?



What you don't understand is, there is absolutely, positively, NO imminent danger of death to justify deadly force in this situation.  NONE.  Read the law.

Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine

After the man pushed him down, he did not continue to attack him.  He didn't kick him.  He didn't punch him.  He didn't pull a weapon.  In fact he did the opposite of presenting imminent danger.  He BACKED UP.  He put his arms down.

The guy on the ground drew his weapon, looked at the guy standing away from him with his hands down at his sides, and shot him.  The sheriff's opinion doesn't matter.  Black Sand failed to post the entire quote from the sheriff where he says, "It's not up to me."  He is turning the evidence over to the prosecutor who will decide whether to charge or not.


----------



## Lewdog

strollingbones said:


> it does fit the stand your ground....the dude came out and just shoved the hell outta him....bad move...lets not forget that illegal parking is what started this all...illegal parking by the women now crying for justice...(illegal handicap parking is a pet peeve of mine) morally it was wrong, the dude was backing up....he knew he lost that battle he just didnt know how badly



He shoved him because the guy got in his wife's face and was yelling at her.  If ANYTHING, the guy that got shot and killed had a better stand your ground case, because the guy with the reputation of having an aggressive attitude, who was carrying a gun, was verbally assaulting his wife.


----------



## strollingbones

lets see what the courts say then


----------



## strollingbones

did you miss the part where i said it was morally wrong....now why did the dude resort to shoving him to the ground....instead of telling his g/f to roll the window up and move the car? violence does beget violence


----------



## Circe

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety?  You're seriously claiming that?  It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  She would not engage him.
> 
> I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.
> 
> We backup and leave.
Click to expand...



Very nice solution -- thanx for the advice.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Lewdog said:


> Nope. Not justifiable. The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon. He wasn't even continuing to assault him. For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life. Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> Second Amendment supporters should be saying that this guy goes to jail for murder... because it is actions like his that actually makes their stance look bad. The guy on the ground shot a man that had backed away from him even before he pulled out the gun, and had his hands at his sides.
> 
> There really is no argument in this instance. It's not even close.


Did anyone else find anything strange about the way the guy looked as he sat there on the ground?  There is a lot of nuance that is sometimes going on when you already know what is going to happen but I got the distinct impression that he was not that frightened, certainly not in fear for his life, his body language didn't reflect this - he actually looked rather calm in my opinion almost as if he had the forethought to make it appear like he was weak or injured perhaps.  

One thing I will say though is they teach you in the class you're required to take to obtain a FL CCW license to say the phrase "I was in fear for my life" if you ever have to use your weapon.  It's like a mantra and I'm sure you all have heard the police state this repeatedly anytime they shoot someone, justified or not, because being in fear for one's life is the legal threshold that has to be met in order to legally claim self-defense.  So whether a person is actually fearful or not they're taught in CCW class that these are the magic words to say to get you out of trouble.

They don't teach you to lie, but there are always those who will obey the rules just long enough to get what they're after and once they have what they want then they do things their own way.  In my opinion, way too many of these stand your ground cases have provided legal cover to individuals who simply did not comply with the requirements of the license, the state's laws for self defense and/or the use of deadly force, yet managed to obtain legal absolution for what essentially amounted to pre-meditated murder.  A perfect example of this, other than the Zimmerman case, is this idiotic ruling by judge Beth Bloom when a guy ran down a thief who had broken into his vehicle and stolen his radio and then stabbed the guy to death in the back.  Judge Bloom ruled he was exercising his "stand-your-ground" rights and the attacker walked.
'Stand Your Ground': Miami Judge Decides Fatal Stabbing Was Self-Defense


----------



## sparky

Lewdog said:


> After the man pushed him down, he did not continue to attack him. He didn't kick him. He didn't punch him. He didn't pull a weapon. *In fact he did the opposite of presenting imminent danger. He BACKED UP. He put his arms down*.



let his lawyer argue THAT in court

~S~


----------



## Lewdog

sparky said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the man pushed him down, he did not continue to attack him. He didn't kick him. He didn't punch him. He didn't pull a weapon. *In fact he did the opposite of presenting imminent danger. He BACKED UP. He put his arms down*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let his lawyer argue THAT in court
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?  The dead guy isn't going to have a lawyer in court.


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> The boyfriend didn't kill the loon, the loon killed the boyfriend



Okay, you seem to be right. I am so confused.

So boyfriend came out of the store, saw his girlfriend being hassled and yelled at, shoved the crazy to the ground, and the crazy instantly shot him dead. Aaaaarrrrrrgh, that doesn't make nearly such a good story! 

Okay, what I as a woman am learning from this is not to park in handicapped places illicitly (I never did anyway), don't hassle people who do that (I never did anyway), and don't keep my tablet on too long if I go into a movie theater: remember that guy who had his tablet on and the retired policeman shot him dead? Darn. That was a Stand-Your-Ground defense, some way. Shortly after that I DID go to a movie and I like to read on my tablet and was kind of worried about it, turned it off as soon as the ads were over --- 

The main thing I learned was not to go to movies. "Why am I sitting in the dark with strangers? Bunch-a killers. Batman shooters, tablet shooter --"  I think the whole country is learning to stay OUT of crowds, any kind of crowd situation at all, from Christmas parties that get shot up to country music festivals that get shot up --- I really think this is part of why Amazon does so well. Malls are a main target for insane shooters. Better just shop at Amazon. Even supermarkets are dangerous, like the one where this incident happened! Just yesterday a crazy took dozens of hostages in a Trader Joe's, killed several people (women, of course: almost all these guys preferentially shoot women).


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.


Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly

A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
Click to expand...


It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one


----------



## kaz

cwise76 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


He's pretty sick, isn't he?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Maybe this will help - even when a person is assaultive but without serious bodily harm, the appropriate response is "non-lethal"


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one



You don't really know that


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
Click to expand...


So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it


----------



## OODA_Loop

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Maybe this will help - even when a person is assaultive but without serious bodily harm, the appropriate response is "non-lethal"



This is for law enforcement purposes.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really know that
Click to expand...


You've obviously never taken a gun safety course


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it



Do they have means immediately available to commit great bodily harm or death while threatening ?


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety?  You're seriously claiming that?  It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  She would not engage him.
> 
> I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.
> 
> We backup and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice solution -- thanx for the advice.
Click to expand...


On the other hand, he'd scream at someone's woman and cap him if he pushed him


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course
Click to expand...


I have.     How do you know he wanted to murder ?


----------



## Lewdog

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Maybe this will help - even when a person is assaultive but without serious bodily harm, the appropriate response is "non-lethal"



When I worked at the prison we had an acronym to list when deadly force could be used.  

F-  Felony, when an inmate is committing a felony that can only be prevented with deadly force
O-  Other, protection of another person who is at severe risk
R-  Riot
S-  Self, to protect yourself from a situation in which your life is at risk
E-  Escape

Of course as a private citizen it is different, but it gives a good idea of the legal boundaries.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety?  You're seriously claiming that?  It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  She would not engage him.
> 
> I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.
> 
> We backup and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice solution -- thanx for the advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, he'd scream at someone's woman and cap him if he pushed him
Click to expand...


No I wouldnt.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
Click to expand...

One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.


----------



## Circe

OODA_Loop said:


> I can take verbal all day.



I am satisfied with this response as advice. If Maryland does go concealed carry (and it could happen: it's only the black areas around Baltimore and DC that are leftwing, after all -- though they have PLENTY of guns) and I do start carrying a gun, which I sort of think I would being tougher than people think, I'm going to take that point of view.

Whereas earlier this year a pop-off at the supermarket (pretty much the only public crowd situation we go to anymore!) started yelling and carrying on at us that we had "stolen" his parking place. Neither of us had seen him at all. Anyway, we got in a parking place, so what?

I pretty much ate him up. I really enjoyed it. I just wasn't having any, and he was funny-looking: 30s, long black beard, too tall. He backed off, heh-heh.

BUT --- if people are carrying guns normally in my state, I would stop doing that. Too dangerous.


----------



## Circe

Vastator said:


> One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.



It would probably make me milder. I would know I wouldn't have to defend myself with sheer assertiveness.


----------



## beagle9

2aguy said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we just come from very different cultures.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz").  Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country.  I was taught that carrying is a responsibility.  You avoid conflict, you don't create it.  Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly.  Those are my values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
Click to expand...

You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back. The shooter had lost his cool due to being pushed down, and his rage caused him to abuse his authority to have a permit to carry or a loaded firearm on his person. Once he pulled the weapon his responsibility was to stop whatever would have transpired after pulling the weapon, and once he saw that the now victim had stopped, and stepped backwards, then it was his responsibility to also stop at that point.

He proved that he was absolutely not qualified to have the permit or a loaded handgun on his person. He became what he was supposed to be protecting others from ("a killer").

The video tells it all regardless of any assumptions or innuendo attempts to be applied to it. One can clearly see that the shooter emotions got the best of him after the push down, and he took it one step to far thus killing the man out of his rage over the push down he got.  If was stalking the parking spot that will only add to the charges making it possibly a premeditated act although maybe harder to prove in the case.

The witnesses will be important in the case as to what he was saying to the girlfriend or wife prior to the push down. If he was being polite, and was simply asking her a question as to why they had parked in the spot if weren't handicapped then he might have a lesser charge of murder in the second instead of murder in the first as if that matters much...  Now if he wasn't handicapped himself, then he had no business confronting the woman at all over the issue.  He should have just called the law from his vehicle, and let them handle it from there.  In fact that's what he should have been doing all along if he was trying to be handicap parking spot monitor for the citizens of his community. Carry permits and weapons are for defensive purposes only, and not for deputizing Barney Fifes all over the cotton pickin place. The damming video is this cats worst nightmare come true.  My condolences goes out to the family of the victim, because they didn't deserve the ultimate punishment for parking in a handicap spot.


----------



## Lewdog

beagle9 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back. The shooter had lost his cool due to being pushed down, and his rage caused him to abuse his authority to have a permit to carry or a loaded firearm on his person. Once he pulled the weapon his responsibility was to stop whatever would have transpired after pulling the weapon, and once he saw that the now victim had stopped, and stepped backwards, then it was his responsibility to also stop at that point.
> 
> He proved that he was absolutely not qualified to have the permit or a loaded handgun on his person. He became what he was supposed to be protecting others from ("a killer").
> 
> The video tells it all regardless of any assumptions or innuendo attempts to be applied to it. One can clearly see that the shooter emotions got the best of him after the push down, and he took it one step to far thus killing the man out of his rage over the push down he got.  If was stalking the parking spot that will only add to the charges making it possibly a premeditated act although maybe harder to prove in the case.
> 
> The witnesses will be important in the case as to what he was saying to the girlfriend or wife prior to the push down. If he was being polite, and was simply asking her a question as to why they had parked in the spot if weren't handicapped, but if he wasn't handicapped then he had no business confronting the woman at all over the issue.  He should have just called the law from his vehicle, and let them handle it from there.  In fact that's what he should have been doing all along if he was trying to be handicap parking spot monitor for the citizens of his community. Carry permits and weapons are for defensive purposes only, and not for deputizing Barney Fifes all over the cotton pickin place. The damming video is this cats worst nightmare come true.  My condolences goes out to the family of the victim, because they didn't deserve the ultimate punishment for parking in a handicap spot.
Click to expand...



The owner of the convenient store said the shooter was a jerk that was always trying to start trouble.  It just shows he had premeditation to instigate a confrontation.


----------



## Circe

sealybobo said:


> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.



First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn. 

Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.

Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> The owner of the convenient store said the shooter was a jerk that was always trying to start trouble.  It just shows he had premeditation to instigate a confrontation.




But no trespass, arrest or indication of other hands on confrontation ?


----------



## Circe

RandomPoster said:


> We have no idea what he said.  A blanket statement that it was only verbal is absurd.  If a man walks up to another man screaming in his face that his wife is a whore and that he should take her home to show her a real man.  He deserves to get his ass kicked.  What if a man tells another man his 15 old daughter has a nice a** and he'd like to f*** it because he likes them at that age?  Are those only words?  Should the father try to reason with him?  The idea that you can say whatever you want in whatever manner you want and not expect to get hit is ridiculous.



These are good examples. Thanx. 

No, I don't agree --- maybe this is just a woman's point of view, but these statements would mark the man as certifiably insane to me, and I would be out of there fastest. I would know he was a killer just by his saying those things, because that's not sane verbalization.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back.



Being knocked down onto the pavement can and will cause death death or great bodily harm or injury.  You can parade many credible medical professionals to testify.

Stepping back from an attack on someone doesn't mean the attack is over.


----------



## Vastator

Circe said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
Click to expand...

Your second point is fantastical speculation, and nothing more. And the race of the participants is of no relevance to the issue.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have means immediately available to commit great bodily harm or death while threatening ?
Click to expand...

He did.


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> So you're saying that your father said that if he was screaming at a woman in a parking lot and her boyfriend came out and shoved him, your father said he'd waste his sorry ass because he deserves to die and he wouldn't think twice.
> 
> Just making sure I understand



Problem: he shoved him on to the pavement. I think that's significant and it's why this creepazoid will probably get off. Being shoved right off his feet makes him helpless (which is the point of doing it) and so he drew and shot. If you watch the video it's extremely fast -- wham down on the pavement, bam goes the gun. No thought occurred. I'm guessing he'll get off.

I sort of hope he's banned from that supermarket, though. That would seem fair, at least.


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pardon me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're pardoned
Click to expand...



Yeah --- this has been an unusually useful thread, good ideas to think about.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have means immediately available to commit great bodily harm or death while threatening ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did.
Click to expand...


The gun was not brandished until after the attack by the deceased ?


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being knocked down onto the pavement can and will cause death death or great bodily harm or injury.  You can parade many credible medical professionals to testify.
> 
> Stepping back from an attack on someone doesn't mean the attack is over.
Click to expand...

Can cause, but didn't cause in the incident.  Big important part of this case. He should have held his ground until the law arrived, and not defended it with lethal force once realized the weapon had stopped the attack.

Nothing was left but for the police to arrive, but he took the shot out of his rage.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have means immediately available to commit great bodily harm or death while threatening ?
Click to expand...


Did you seriously just ask that?   First of all, a full size grown man screaming at a woman can do great bodily harm to a woman, yes.

And the answer to can a guy who pushed you down for doing that and stood back isn't doing you great bodily harm or death either, hypocrite


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety?  You're seriously claiming that?  It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  She would not engage him.
> 
> I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready.  I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.
> 
> We backup and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice solution -- thanx for the advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, he'd scream at someone's woman and cap him if he pushed him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I wouldnt.
Click to expand...


OK, fair enough.  You'd just defend it


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.     How do you know he wanted to murder ?
Click to expand...


The answer to that is in my quote


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have means immediately available to commit great bodily harm or death while threatening ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun was not brandished until after the attack by the deceased ?
Click to expand...

Huh ? You spoke of means as in did he (Draca) have the means to kill while threatening the girlfriend or wife right ??  I said he did have the means.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> 
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.
Click to expand...


You've obviously never taken a gun safety course.  I hope that means you don't have any guns


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being knocked down onto the pavement can and will cause death death or great bodily harm or injury.  You can parade many credible medical professionals to testify.
> 
> Stepping back from an attack on someone doesn't mean the attack is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can cause, but didn't cause in the incident.  Big important part of this case. He should have held his ground until the law arrived, and not defended it with lethal force once realized the weapon had stopped the attack.
> 
> Nothing was left but for the police to arrive, but he took the shot out of his rage.
Click to expand...

You can't shoot to defend yourself if you are unconscious, or dead. So that guts that argument that you thought you were making.
And as for what the victim was feeling psycologically when he defended himself... Your claim is pure speculation, and nothing more.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Can cause, but didn't cause in the incident.  Big important part of this case. He should have held his ground until the law arrived, and not defended it with lethal force once realized the weapon had stopped the attack.




Florida law requires reasonable fear of injury or death.    You don't have to wait until your injured or dead to defend yourself.


----------



## Circe

toobfreak said:


> You can't just kill someone for simple assault.




Are you kidding? I could. In a New York minute. Not sure I could after being shoved lying down on the pavement: I'd probably have broken bones. But if I still could, after being shoved off my feet, I would --- and nobody would convict me or even charge me! The issues are different if it's a woman being attacked.

But of course I wouldn't be screaming at someone for standing their car for a few minutes in a handicapped space --- one thing that is obvious is that Crazyman was a leftist. Normal people mind their own business.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly
> 
> A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground
Click to expand...

Has no bearing on the case now.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Did you seriously just ask that?   First of all, a full size grown man screaming at a woman can do great bodily harm to a woman, yes.




How is she harmed by words - her hearing ?


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
Click to expand...


Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course.  I hope that means you don't have any guns
Click to expand...

In keeping with a common thing amongst many on this thread, your post is pure speculation. Your "hopes" are of equally worthless value, as they pertain to this incident.


----------



## The Professor

Lewdog said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> okay let me explain the difference.....before you had to retreat as much as you could and then defend yourself in court....
> now there is no mandate to retreat...if you feel your life is in danger...you may shoot and its up to the prosecutor to make the case that you had no right to stand your ground....now please tell me what we dont understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't understand is, there is absolutely, positively, NO imminent danger of death to justify deadly force in this situation.  NONE.  Read the law.
> 
> Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine
> 
> After the man pushed him down, he did not continue to attack him.  He didn't kick him.  He didn't punch him.  He didn't pull a weapon.  In fact he did the opposite of presenting imminent danger.  He BACKED UP.  He put his arms down.
> 
> The guy on the ground drew his weapon, looked at the guy standing away from him with his hands down at his sides, and shot him.  The sheriff's opinion doesn't matter.  Black Sand failed to post the entire quote from the sheriff where he says, "It's not up to me."  He is turning the evidence over to the prosecutor who will decide whether to charge or not.
Click to expand...


Great post.

I would be shocked if the man were not charged.  Like you, I know the law and having watched the video it is clear that the use of deadly force was not allowed under Florida law.  

I will have much more to say later.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly
> 
> A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has no bearing on the case now.
Click to expand...



Sure it does.    If it goes to hearing.     Defense will produce incidents and professional testimony of death due to head injuries from being pushed or falling onto hard surfaces.    That reasonable fear is justification for lethal force under Florida law


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one




Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO. 

But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.

These types are probably best avoided...…...


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
Click to expand...

There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt have said anything either.
> But words dont give you the right to attack someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
Click to expand...


   You dont know what was said between the two.


----------



## Vastator

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.     How do you know he wanted to murder ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to that is in my quote
Click to expand...


Come on you dont know that.   You think that.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have means immediately available to commit great bodily harm or death while threatening ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun was not brandished until after the attack by the deceased ?
Click to expand...


He's talking about his fists.  I mean duh.  How did you possibly not get that?


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> 
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course.  I hope that means you don't have any guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In keeping with a common thing amongst many on this thread, your post is pure speculation. Your "hopes" are of equally worthless value, as they pertain to this incident.
Click to expand...


I like your lame repeated line that anything you think is fact and no one else can say what they think because that's just opinion.  Keep on whining.

This is a discussion.  We're discussing the evidence presented.  Just like you're doing


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> He's talking about his fists, moron.  I mean duh.  How did you possibly not get that?



In that case did he place his hands on anyone ?


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
Click to expand...


So you don't think 9/11 was not murder one, just manslaughter?  Seriously?  You have to target the specific victim?

That's ridiculous.  If you shoot into a crowd, it's murder one.  You don't have to know who you are going to kill


----------



## beagle9

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that your father said that if he was screaming at a woman in a parking lot and her boyfriend came out and shoved him, your father said he'd waste his sorry ass because he deserves to die and he wouldn't think twice.
> 
> Just making sure I understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem: he shoved him on to the pavement. I think that's significant and it's why this creepazoid will probably get off. Being shoved right off his feet makes him helpless (which is the point of doing it) and so he drew and shot. If you watch the video it's extremely fast -- wham down on the pavement, bam goes the gun. No thought occurred. I'm guessing he'll get off.
> 
> I sort of hope he's banned from that supermarket, though. That would seem fair, at least.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you saw, but the shot wasn't immediate.


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> Did you seriously just ask that?   First of all, a full size grown man screaming at a woman can do great bodily harm to a woman, yes.



To be fair, not if she stayed in the car! Which she did, until boyfriend came out, and she never was hurt (except that the father of her children was killed --) Boy, if it were me, I'd sure have stayed in that car, closed up the window, locked the doors, started honking over and over ---

Actually, aggressive honking the horn might well have stopped the bullying attack. That's what this guy was doing, you realize: he didn't know there WAS a boyfriend. He was having himself a big ol' time bullying a woman.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you seriously just ask that?   First of all, a full size grown man screaming at a woman can do great bodily harm to a woman, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is she harmed by words - her hearing ?
Click to expand...


You already admitted that both you and your wife would have been in fear for your wife's safety if it had been you.  Cut the crap


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course.  I hope that means you don't have any guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In keeping with a common thing amongst many on this thread, your post is pure speculation. Your "hopes" are of equally worthless value, as they pertain to this incident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your lame repeated line that anything you think is fact and no one else can say what they think because that's just opinion.  Keep on whining.
> 
> This is a discussion.  We're discussing the evidence presented.  Just like you're doing
Click to expand...

Presenting what you believe others are thinking as fact, and sharing your feelings about other posters is in no way discussing the evidence presented. Its nothing more than unsubstantiated, and unproveable gossip.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words.  So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that?  They're just words?  Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?
> 
> And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
> 
> Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there.  They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed.  Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him?  No way, it's not right.
> 
> At least not where I was raised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what was said between the two.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...

I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?


----------



## PredFan

sealybobo said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want black guys with ccw permits to go hit on white guys girlfriends. Don’t touch but verbally be really aggressive and disrespect the white guy. When he pushes you blow him away and claim stand your ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit!!! Again?
> I posted three links saying the sheriff wasnt going to charge the guy and one where I specifically stated that it will be decided by the DA.
> Did you even read the whole thread or did you jump in late and start spouting shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess who files criminal charges dumbass!
> 
> My God you are thick!  The cops didn't arrest him.  That doesn't mean he was cleared of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares who files them ya tard.
> Fact is the cops said they werent and they'd leave to the higher ups to charge him if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he was cleared.  That's not true,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This case isn’t over and the guy isn’t cleared. You can’t just shoot and kill somebody like that.
> 
> The video is clear to me: The boyfriend came to the aide of his GF who was being screamed at by a known antagonist(and possible racist so maybe he was using the N word)pushes him away and backed up. The guy with gun pulled the trigger as the  BF was backing away. Again cold blooded murder and I hope that they lock his ass up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, but I also hope the message is being received that you can’t physically attack someone like that guy did. He didn’t need to push him that hard. That was wrong and why right wing cowards passed stand your ground. It’s a bully law. It allows weak gun owners to defend themselves. Kick sand in my face? Eat lead bully.
Click to expand...


First two sentences are correct, then you spiraled into stupid.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
Click to expand...


The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being knocked down onto the pavement can and will cause death death or great bodily harm or injury.  You can parade many credible medical professionals to testify.
> 
> Stepping back from an attack on someone doesn't mean the attack is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can cause, but didn't cause in the incident.  Big important part of this case. He should have held his ground until the law arrived, and not defended it with lethal force once realized the weapon had stopped the attack.
> 
> Nothing was left but for the police to arrive, but he took the shot out of his rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't shoot to defend yourself if you are unconscious, or dead. So that guts that argument that you thought you were making.
> And as for what the victim was feeling psycologically when he defended himself... Your claim is pure speculation, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Your assertions here are also pure speculation..


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.     How do you know he wanted to murder ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to that is in my quote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on you dont know that.   You think that.
Click to expand...


I have basic reasoning skills, yet.

And if you want to boil every point to that we can't discuss it on the internet without it having been proven in a court of law, that applies to every statement you're made as well, hypocrite.

I'm checking out of this discussion with you if you continue with the bull shit line that no one but you is allowed to say anything because you know and we don't


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> You already admitted that both you and your wife would have been in fear for your wife's safety if it had been you.  Cut the crap



No crap here.    I would be in Condition Yellow were someone yelling at my wife while she is in the car.

She would have windows up and her lawful sidearm at the ready.

I would exit store (with or without hypothetical child in tow) in Condition Yellow and make to exfiltrate the area.

Lethal force would not be used or an option until such time that reasonable fear or injury or death.

I would not proceed to shove fight or engage the instigator under any circumstance.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> I have basic reasoning skills, yet.
> 
> And if you want to boil every point to that we can't discuss it on the internet without it having been proven in a court of law, that applies to every statement you're made as well, hypocrite.
> 
> I'm checking out of this discussion with you if you continue with the bull shit line that no one but you is allowed to say anything because you know and we don't



It is really not discussion you want then.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
Click to expand...

What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already admitted that both you and your wife would have been in fear for your wife's safety if it had been you.  Cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No crap here.    I would be in Condition Yellow were someone yelling at my wife while she is in the car.
> 
> She would have windows up and her lawful sidearm at the ready.
> 
> I would exit store (with or without hypothetical child in tow) in Condition Yellow and make to exfiltrate the area.
> 
> Lethal force would not be used or an option until such time that reasonable fear or injury or death.
> 
> I would not proceed to shove fight or engage the instigator under any circumstance.
Click to expand...


He's armed.  It doesn't matter if she is in the car.  Bullets go through glass.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about his fists, moron.  I mean duh.  How did you possibly not get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case did he place his hands on anyone ?
Click to expand...


You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you


----------



## Lewdog

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of character witnesses against the shooter that show his state of mind.  The OWNER of the convenient store said the shooter goes out in the parking lot and yells at people all the time.


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you seriously just ask that?   First of all, a full size grown man screaming at a woman can do great bodily harm to a woman, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, not if she stayed in the car! Which she did, until boyfriend came out, and she never was hurt (except that the father of her children was killed --) Boy, if it were me, I'd sure have stayed in that car, closed up the window, locked the doors, started honking over and over ---
> 
> Actually, aggressive honking the horn might well have stopped the bullying attack. That's what this guy was doing, you realize: he didn't know there WAS a boyfriend. He was having himself a big ol' time bullying a woman.
Click to expand...


I agree except we don't know the guy didn't know there was a boyfriend since he was guard dogging the parking spot


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you.  The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course.  I hope that means you don't have any guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In keeping with a common thing amongst many on this thread, your post is pure speculation. Your "hopes" are of equally worthless value, as they pertain to this incident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your lame repeated line that anything you think is fact and no one else can say what they think because that's just opinion.  Keep on whining.
> 
> This is a discussion.  We're discussing the evidence presented.  Just like you're doing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presenting what you believe others are thinking as fact, and sharing your feelings about other posters is in no way discussing the evidence presented. Its nothing more than unsubstantiated, and unproveable gossip.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> He's armed.  It doesn't matter if she is in the car.  Bullets go through glass.



He wasn't brandishing,  If he was I would shoot him repeatedly and accurately till he dropped his weapon or was no longer a threat.


----------



## beagle9

kaz said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
Click to expand...

So your assertion is that the alledged white guy was stalking the alledged black people, and using the parking spot as the starter ??? Hope not, and hopefully if race was a factor in the case, then it needs to be qualified as such in the proper legal proceedings, and not on the street in speculation of or in rumor of.  Hope that you are not interjecting race where not credible in the case.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about his fists, moron.  I mean duh.  How did you possibly not get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case did he place his hands on anyone ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you
Click to expand...


Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.


----------



## Circe

Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black[/QUOTE]



Ahhhhhh………..a race murder by a black, then, if you are right. The black screaming at a white woman. 

Sheeeeesh.  BLM.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot.....  Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what was said between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


   I didnt hear what the guy and the chick were saying.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
Click to expand...


You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
Click to expand...

Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
Click to expand...


  But you have no idea what he was saying.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being knocked down onto the pavement can and will cause death death or great bodily harm or injury.  You can parade many credible medical professionals to testify.
> 
> Stepping back from an attack on someone doesn't mean the attack is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can cause, but didn't cause in the incident.  Big important part of this case. He should have held his ground until the law arrived, and not defended it with lethal force once realized the weapon had stopped the attack.
> 
> Nothing was left but for the police to arrive, but he took the shot out of his rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't shoot to defend yourself if you are unconscious, or dead. So that guts that argument that you thought you were making.
> And as for what the victim was feeling psycologically when he defended himself... Your claim is pure speculation, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assertions here are also pure speculation..
Click to expand...

Actually mine are facts. Feel free to disprove them by posting a link to an incident where an unconciouss, or dead person has defended themselves. Don't worry. I'll wait...


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already admitted that both you and your wife would have been in fear for your wife's safety if it had been you.  Cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No crap here.    I would be in Condition Yellow were someone yelling at my wife while she is in the car.
> 
> She would have windows up and her lawful sidearm at the ready.
> 
> I would exit store (with or without hypothetical child in tow) in Condition Yellow and make to exfiltrate the area.
> 
> Lethal force would not be used or an option until such time that reasonable fear or injury or death.
> 
> I would not proceed to shove fight or engage the instigator under any circumstance.
Click to expand...


So stop asking me a question you already answered yourself.  The guy didn't just talk to the woman, he threatened her and you know it.  So did he.  Any full grown man knows that yelling at a woman in a parking lot is threatening.  We're bigger and stronger than they are and it's psychotic behavior.  That isn't just "verbal." 

Can you process the point and move on now?


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have basic reasoning skills, yet.
> 
> And if you want to boil every point to that we can't discuss it on the internet without it having been proven in a court of law, that applies to every statement you're made as well, hypocrite.
> 
> I'm checking out of this discussion with you if you continue with the bull shit line that no one but you is allowed to say anything because you know and we don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really not discussion you want then.
Click to expand...


I said you keep telling me everything I say is speculation, yet you admit no such thing for yourself. 

You're the one evading a discussion by doing that.  It's a form of ad hominem argument


----------



## Meathead

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...

Absolutely justifiable. That was aggravated assault.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
Click to expand...


  How can the store owner possibly know what was said?


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of character witnesses against the shooter that show his state of mind.  The OWNER of the convenient store said the shooter goes out in the parking lot and yells at people all the time.
Click to expand...

Prior behavior doesn't prove state of mind in the moment. Have they witnessed the victims behavior while he was being assaulted, in the past? I saw no evidence to suggest they had.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Any full grown man knows that yelling at a woman in a parking lot is threatening.  We're bigger and stronger than they are and it's psychotic behavior.  That isn't just "verbal."
> 
> Can you process the point and move on now?



Yelling absent action is nothing.

Your point is words can deserve violence.

They don't.  You should have learned that in Kindergarten.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video.

And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know


----------



## Circe

beagle9 said:


> So your assertion is that the alledged white guy was stalking the alledged black people, and using the parking spot as the starter ??? Hope not, and hopefully if race was a factor in the case, then it needs to be qualified as such in the proper legal proceedings, and not on the street in speculation of or in rumor of.  Hope that you are not interjecting race where not credible in the case.



1. It can't be clear because I watched it, the large ABC version, and I did not see any race identification I could make. And you know that's the third thing Americans identify, after sex and age.

2. Apparently I AM interjecting race where it doesn't belong, because now people are claiming it was the OTHER way around. Some say the shooter was black and some say he was white -------------- this case is all over the place because it's terminally confusing. Forget about race for now: let's just try to get the facts accurate.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> One should conduct themselves the same whether armed or not. If having a weapon on your person changes your demeanor... Then you shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course.  I hope that means you don't have any guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In keeping with a common thing amongst many on this thread, your post is pure speculation. Your "hopes" are of equally worthless value, as they pertain to this incident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your lame repeated line that anything you think is fact and no one else can say what they think because that's just opinion.  Keep on whining.
> 
> This is a discussion.  We're discussing the evidence presented.  Just like you're doing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presenting what you believe others are thinking as fact, and sharing your feelings about other posters is in no way discussing the evidence presented. Its nothing more than unsubstantiated, and unproveable gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...

You keep repeating yourself. Quit spamming, and bring relevant content.


----------



## Lewdog

Vastator said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of character witnesses against the shooter that show his state of mind.  The OWNER of the convenient store said the shooter goes out in the parking lot and yells at people all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prior behavior doesn't prove state of mind in the moment. Have they witnessed the victims behavior while he was being assaulted, in the past? I saw no evidence to suggest they had.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.  Just the fact you are asking that question tells me you haven't actually watched the video.  

How many pages have you been arguing and haven't even watched the fucking video?  Or are you watching it and not listening to the sound?


----------



## kaz

beagle9 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your assertion is that the alledged white guy was stalking the alledged black people, and using the parking spot as the starter ??? Hope not, and hopefully if race was a factor in the case, then it needs to be qualified as such in the proper legal proceedings, and not on the street in speculation of or in rumor of.  Hope that you are not interjecting race where not credible in the case.
Click to expand...


WTF?  I answered the question asked.  What is wrong with you?


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> I said you keep telling me everything I say is speculation, yet you admit no such thing for yourself.
> 
> You're the one evading a discussion by doing that.  It's a form of ad hominem argument




You speculate when you say he thought, said or wanted to do "x".


How exactly do I speculate ?


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
Click to expand...

And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about his fists, moron.  I mean duh.  How did you possibly not get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case did he place his hands on anyone ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
Click to expand...


Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off


----------



## BlackSand

Lewdog said:


> That shooting does not fit the law.  Period.



Read the article ... The sheriff disagrees with you.
And whereas you may disagree with the sheriff ... What you think doesn't matter ... 

.​


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh………..a race murder by a black, then, if you are right. The black screaming at a white woman.
> 
> Sheeeeesh.  BLM.
Click to expand...


Fuck you, dick.  I answered your question.  Don't ask a question if you don't want it answered


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off




The act of knocking down was the escalation that resulted in lethal force.

Play stupid games - win stupid prizes.


----------



## Vastator

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what was said between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt hear what the guy and the chick were saying.
Click to expand...

Neither did I...


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a  jury will agree too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what was said between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt hear what the guy and the chick were saying.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
Click to expand...


Strawman


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what was said between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt hear what the guy and the chick were saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


   Already did.
I couldnt hear what they were saying.


----------



## Lewdog

BlackSand said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That shooting does not fit the law.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the article ... The sheriff disagrees with you.
> And whereas you may disagree with the sheriff ... What you think doesn't matter ...
> 
> .​
Click to expand...


No the sheriff says the way the law is worded it isn't up to him to arrest the guy because it is up to the prosecutor whether charges can be pressed or not.  Learn 2 read.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of character witnesses against the shooter that show his state of mind.  The OWNER of the convenient store said the shooter goes out in the parking lot and yells at people all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prior behavior doesn't prove state of mind in the moment. Have they witnessed the victims behavior while he was being assaulted, in the past? I saw no evidence to suggest they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Just the fact you are asking that question tells me you haven't actually watched the video.
> 
> How many pages have you been arguing and haven't even watched the fucking video?  Or are you watching it and not listening to the sound?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. No matter how much you need it to, in order to support your position.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## Circe

Vastator said:


> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.



Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed. 

I think I'll start doing that.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any full grown man knows that yelling at a woman in a parking lot is threatening.  We're bigger and stronger than they are and it's psychotic behavior.  That isn't just "verbal."
> 
> Can you process the point and move on now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling absent action is nothing.
> 
> Your point is words can deserve violence.
> 
> They don't.  You should have learned that in Kindergarten.
Click to expand...


You already admitted you and your wife would have felt threatened.  You can't unring that bell


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


    Are you a parrot?


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...



They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.  

So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> You already admitted you and your wife would have felt threatened.  You can't unring that bell




Yes but not to the point requiring hands on or lethal force action.

The goal is to unring the bell and survive.

Lethal force is a losing proposition.  Dont look for it.   Especially for words you dont like.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've obviously never taken a gun safety course.  I hope that means you don't have any guns
> 
> 
> 
> In keeping with a common thing amongst many on this thread, your post is pure speculation. Your "hopes" are of equally worthless value, as they pertain to this incident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your lame repeated line that anything you think is fact and no one else can say what they think because that's just opinion.  Keep on whining.
> 
> This is a discussion.  We're discussing the evidence presented.  Just like you're doing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presenting what you believe others are thinking as fact, and sharing your feelings about other posters is in no way discussing the evidence presented. Its nothing more than unsubstantiated, and unproveable gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself. Quit spamming, and bring relevant content.
Click to expand...


I keep giving you the same answer to the same question, that is correct.

My answer is obvious.  If you or HereWeGoAgain want to discuss it, you would address my point.  Neither of you are doing that.  You just repeat the same question and ignore my answer


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's armed.  It doesn't matter if she is in the car.  Bullets go through glass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't brandishing,  If he was I would shoot him repeatedly and accurately till he dropped his weapon or was no longer a threat.
Click to expand...

This cat if proven to be a stalker for a kill, is the poster boy for not issuing permits for concealed carry to just anyone in society without the proper vetting of the applicant through checking out his friends and family members for character and mental stability issues going back say 10 years or more maybe. 

Certain levels of protection could be granted to an applicant depending on what is found in the complete back ground check.  If qualify for level one say, then a liscense to carry a gun would be issued, but if qualify for a less lethal form like say a level two or beyond, then certain forms of non-lethal weapons could be carried openly and/or concealed for personal protection in which could be qualified as open carry upon ones side if preferred or not if preferred.  

Say with a level two permit, the applicant could carry a taser that could possibly kill, but would not kill the person as would a gun if discharged into a victims body as opposed to the less lethal form of a taser for defensive protection if used.

What say y'all or are we jumping the shark here in this debate maybe ?


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
Click to expand...

Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


----------



## BlackSand

Lewdog said:


> No the sheriff says the way the law is worded it isn't up to him to arrest the guy because it is up to the prosecutor whether charges can be pressed or not.  Learn 2 read.



The prosecutor cannot rewrite the law any more than the sheriff can ...
No matter what the article tries to suggest ... 

.​


----------



## Lewdog

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's armed.  It doesn't matter if she is in the car.  Bullets go through glass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't brandishing,  If he was I would shoot him repeatedly and accurately till he dropped his weapon or was no longer a threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This cat if proven to be a stalker for a kill, is the poster boy for not issuing permits for concealed carry to just anyone in society without the proper vetting of the applicant through checking out his friends and family members for character and mental stability issues going back say 10 years or more maybe.
> 
> Certain levels of protection could be granted to an applicant depending on what is found in the complete back ground check.  If qualify for level one say, then a liscense to carry a gun would be issued, but if qualify for a less lethal form like say a level two or beyond, then certain forms of non-lethal weapons could be carried openly and/or concealed for personal protection in which could be qualified as open carry upon ones side if preferred or not if preferred.
> 
> Say with a level two permit, the applicant could carry a taser that could possibly kill, but would not kill the person as would a gun if discharged into a victims body as opposed to the less lethal form of a taser for defensive protection if used.
> 
> What say y'all or are we jumping the shark here in this debate maybe ?
Click to expand...


But that's the problem, and why people like 2aguy will defend this guy until he's blue in the face.  Doing otherwise would be admitting that we DO NEED more gun laws.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said you keep telling me everything I say is speculation, yet you admit no such thing for yourself.
> 
> You're the one evading a discussion by doing that.  It's a form of ad hominem argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You speculate when you say he thought, said or wanted to do "x".
> 
> 
> How exactly do I speculate ?
Click to expand...


So you're arguing that the shooting was justified, but you aren't speculating.  Got it.  

I'm not putting you on ignore, but I warned you and I won't respond to any more of your posts in this thread.  The argument that everything I say is speculation is stupid shit beneath your dignity.  But you insist on sticking with it.  So you're a waste of time in this discussion.

And this is a discussion on an internet board.  Your deep bias that everyone is speculating but you aside, we have the right to discuss it and parroting over and over that everyone but you is speculating would be bull shit even if it was true, which it's not


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> In keeping with a common thing amongst many on this thread, your post is pure speculation. Your "hopes" are of equally worthless value, as they pertain to this incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your lame repeated line that anything you think is fact and no one else can say what they think because that's just opinion.  Keep on whining.
> 
> This is a discussion.  We're discussing the evidence presented.  Just like you're doing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presenting what you believe others are thinking as fact, and sharing your feelings about other posters is in no way discussing the evidence presented. Its nothing more than unsubstantiated, and unproveable gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself. Quit spamming, and bring relevant content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep giving you the same answer to the same question, that is correct.
> 
> My answer is obvious.  If you or HereWeGoAgain want to discuss it, you would address my point.  Neither of you are doing that.  You just repeat the same question and ignore my answer
Click to expand...


  What point are you trying to make?


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> This cat if proven to be a stalker for a kill, is the poster boy for not issuing permits for concealed carry to just anyone in society without the proper vetting of the applicant through checking out his friends and family members for character and mental stability issues going back say 10 years or more maybe.



or he could have had a FL permit for decades and until someone attacked him never had an issue.


----------



## Lewdog

BlackSand said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the sheriff says the way the law is worded it isn't up to him to arrest the guy because it is up to the prosecutor whether charges can be pressed or not.  Learn 2 read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prosecutor cannot rewrite the law any more than the sheriff can ...
> 
> .​
Click to expand...


Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
Click to expand...


It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack.....  He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont know what was said between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt hear what the guy and the chick were saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither did I...
Click to expand...

Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## Vastator

Circe said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.
> 
> I think I'll start doing that.
Click to expand...

The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a parrot?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time.  My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on.  You don't have to agree with my answer.  If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it.  But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.

Funny how that works, huh?


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> So you're arguing that the shooting was justified, but you aren't speculating.  Got it.
> 
> I'm not putting you on ignore, but I warned you and I won't respond to any more of your posts in this thread.  The argument that everything I say is speculation is stupid shit beneath your dignity.  But you insist on sticking with it.  So you're a waste of time in this discussion.
> 
> And this is a discussion on an internet board.  Your deep bias that everyone is speculating but you aside, we have the right to discuss it and parroting over and over that everyone but you is speculating would be bull shit even if it was true, which it's not



Ok.  I want you to know your retreat makes my day.   

Lets recap:
*
-  You speculate when you claim to know what is in someone's head.
-  Every 5 year old should know words are no excuse for violence.
-  Do not put your hands on people.  Especially old dudes.*


----------



## BlackSand

Lewdog said:


> Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.



The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
You said no one understood the law ...
And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.

If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
Means you have a better understand of the law ...
Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...

You are stupid ... 
Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.

.​


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a parrot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time.  My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on.  You don't have to agree with my answer.  If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it.  But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.
> 
> Funny how that works, huh?
Click to expand...


  Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

OODA_Loop said:


> This is for law enforcement purposes.


Not strictly law enforcement.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber
Click to expand...

Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.
> 
> So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.
Click to expand...


That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race.  I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence.  George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.

I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over.  You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy.  Those are entirely different.

Every situation isn't about race.  Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer


----------



## Circe

Lewdog said:


> They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.
> 
> So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.



I don't know who was white and who was black, but I don't have any sympathy for Mr. I-just-luuuv-to-scream-at-women. I think he has a huge sympathy gap here if it is proven that he's a known troublemaker at that venue.

These Zimmerman types, the "I'm defending the RULES" guys, always get into trouble.


----------



## OODA_Loop

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is for law enforcement purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> Not strictly law enforcement.
Click to expand...


Other related ,including non-sworn LE uses.   Not civilians


----------



## OODA_Loop

Circe said:


> These Zimmerman types, the "I'm defending the RULES" guys, always get into trouble.




Zimmerman was attacked just like this guy. 

More support to keep your hands to yourself.
_
Things we learn in Kindergarten serve us a lifetime_


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
Click to expand...


Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> 
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


But you continuing to ask the same question isn't parroting, only when you get the same answer to the same question.  Got it


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your lame repeated line that anything you think is fact and no one else can say what they think because that's just opinion.  Keep on whining.
> 
> This is a discussion.  We're discussing the evidence presented.  Just like you're doing
> 
> 
> 
> Presenting what you believe others are thinking as fact, and sharing your feelings about other posters is in no way discussing the evidence presented. Its nothing more than unsubstantiated, and unproveable gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep repeating yourself. Quit spamming, and bring relevant content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep giving you the same answer to the same question, that is correct.
> 
> My answer is obvious.  If you or HereWeGoAgain want to discuss it, you would address my point.  Neither of you are doing that.  You just repeat the same question and ignore my answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What point are you trying to make?
Click to expand...


I have to ask you.  You SERIOUSLY don't know the answer to that?  

What happens at the one minute mark of the video?   I'll walk you through this.  Who says what that I'm referring to?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you continuing to ask the same question isn't parroting, only when you get the same answer to the same question.  Got it
Click to expand...


   Your answer makes no sense.
You claim to know what was said between the two when thats impossible.
   Non of us know.


----------



## Lewdog

BlackSand said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
Click to expand...


The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.

Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a parrot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time.  My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on.  You don't have to agree with my answer.  If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it.  But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.
> 
> Funny how that works, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
Click to expand...

Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot.  Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.

We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored.  It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation.  Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.



Ding.  Its called REASONABLE DOUBT.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.
Click to expand...


You keep saying that, but your conclusion is that when he got pushed, he capped the guy and all was fine.  He was in no danger when he shot the guy.  The guy was well away from him, moving back and he had a gun.  You're fine with shooting at him, but being verbally aggressive and you're all about safety and non violence.

You have a flagrant double standard


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.
> 
> So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race.  I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence.  George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.
> 
> I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over.  You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy.  Those are entirely different.
> 
> Every situation isn't about race.  Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer
Click to expand...


I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real.  We continue to see it happen everyday.  I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon.  I mean fucking seriously?  Over a coupon?  Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game.  Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm.  This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
Click to expand...

Your personal definition of "tone" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you continuing to ask the same question isn't parroting, only when you get the same answer to the same question.  Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer makes no sense.
> You claim to know what was said between the two when thats impossible.
> Non of us know.
Click to expand...

Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
Click to expand...

He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.


----------



## BlackSand

Lewdog said:


> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.



Your degree isn't enough to help you understand that the sheriff stated it "fell between the bookends" ...
Meaning it isn't clear cut no matter what decision you would like to suggest.

You don't have to have a law degree to determine the similarities between your opened empty speculation ...
And utter bullshit ... 

You aren't the prosecutor ... The prosecutor hasn't done anything.
Like I said Lewdog Esquire ... Argue some more empty speculation if you think it makes a difference.

.​


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding.  Its called REASONABLE DOUBT.
Click to expand...


No it isn't...

A sheriff isn't a lawyer.  Do you understand the difference between a sheriff's job and a prosecutor's job?  Should we start a civics class thread?


----------



## Lewdog

BlackSand said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your degree isn't enough to help you understand that the sheriff stated it "fell between the bookends" ...
> Meaning it isn't clear cut no matter what decision you would like to suggest.
> 
> You don't have to have a law degree to determine the similarities between your opened empty speculation ...
> And utter bullshit ...
> 
> You aren't the prosecutor ...
> The prosecutor hasn't done anything ...
> Like I said Lewdog Esquire ... Argue some more empty speculation if you think it makes a difference.
> 
> .​
Click to expand...



I SAID IT WASN'T CLEAR CUT ENOUGH FOR THE SHERIFF TO ARREST HIM.  WTF can't you read?


----------



## Wry Catcher

miketx said:


> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.



That is the common defense, something a jury decides is bunk 99% of the time.  The shooter was acting as a vigilante, and armed at the time.  Common sense suggests his intent was premeditated - give him the needle.  This is one more example of the Zimmerman Syndrome.


----------



## OODA_Loop

The guy took the round to the chest.  He was square to the shooter.


​


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.
> 
> So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race.  I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence.  George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.
> 
> I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over.  You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy.  Those are entirely different.
> 
> Every situation isn't about race.  Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real.  We continue to see it happen everyday.  I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon.  I mean fucking seriously?  Over a coupon?  Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game.  Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm.  This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.
Click to expand...


What is real?


----------



## Skull Pilot

U2Edge said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
Click to expand...



Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding.  Its called REASONABLE DOUBT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't...
> 
> A sheriff isn't a lawyer.  Do you understand the difference between a sheriff's job and a prosecutor's job?  Should we start a civics class thread?
Click to expand...


The Sherrif had doubt or an arrest would have been effectuated


----------



## beagle9

kaz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your assertion is that the alledged white guy was stalking the alledged black people, and using the parking spot as the starter ??? Hope not, and hopefully if race was a factor in the case, then it needs to be qualified as such in the proper legal proceedings, and not on the street in speculation of or in rumor of.  Hope that you are not interjecting race where not credible in the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  I answered the question asked.  What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Ok, so a no assertion was made beyond the answer you gave to the question.. Got it.. Thanks.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
Click to expand...


But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.

I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but your conclusion is that when he got pushed, he capped the guy and all was fine.  He was in no danger when he shot the guy.  The guy was well away from him, moving back and he had a gun.  You're fine with shooting at him, but being verbally aggressive and you're all about safety and non violence.
> 
> You have a flagrant double standard
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing if the victim is still in danger just because he was on the ground. The assailant had already demonstrated unpredictable violent behavior, just fractions of a second before being shot. The assault is only over when one of two things happen. When the assailant decides to end the assault. Or when the assailant is rendered incapable of continuing the assault.


----------



## BlackSand

Lewdog said:


> I SAID IT WASN'T CLEAR CUT ENOUGH FOR THE SHERIFF TO ARREST HIM.  WTF can't you read?



You said no one understood the law.
I said the sheriff had a better understanding than you.

Your stupid ass decided to argue with that.
That's not a failing of my reading comprehension dumbass ... 

.​


----------



## kaz

beagle9 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people parking in a handicap spot?
> 
> The store worker said the shooter was frequently harassing people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your assertion is that the alledged white guy was stalking the alledged black people, and using the parking spot as the starter ??? Hope not, and hopefully if race was a factor in the case, then it needs to be qualified as such in the proper legal proceedings, and not on the street in speculation of or in rumor of.  Hope that you are not interjecting race where not credible in the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  I answered the question asked.  What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so a no assertion was made beyond the answer you gave to the question.. Got it.. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I don't know what that is supposed to mean.  I answered the question asked


----------



## Circe

Vastator said:


> The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.




Can't quite agree with you that someone who killed my dear husband wouldn't be endangering me...…….  

She had her little kid right there in the situation, too. 

This is your typical crazed killer sex assault thing: the crazies always, always go after the women. Shopping malls, restaurants, Walmarts, there are always more women killed, sometimes exclusively women. Right back to Columbine. I've read articles referring to that statistic. Do your own counts the next dozen mass killings: you'll be surprised. It's not chance. The only time a crazy killed more men was at that homosexual nightclub in Florida! 

These types just love to bully and kill women and he was having himself a little private happy time bullying a woman alone in a car. Boyfriend came out and spoiled it. If the woman and kid had gone in the store, anybody want to bet he'd have left the male parking space offender alone? Of course he would have. The man's a coward and a sex assaulter: he just loves to bully women. Forget the handicapped parking space: he's after hurting women, any way he can. 

No, I'm not sympathetic with Mr. Shooter. I think he'll get off, but he's the worst of the worst.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
Click to expand...

True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> 
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that, but your conclusion is that when he got pushed, he capped the guy and all was fine.  He was in no danger when he shot the guy.  The guy was well away from him, moving back and he had a gun.  You're fine with shooting at him, but being verbally aggressive and you're all about safety and non violence.
> 
> You have a flagrant double standard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing if the victim is still in danger ist because he was on the ground. The assailant had already demonstrated unpredictable violent behavior, just fractions of a second before being shot. The assault is only over when one of two things happen. Then the assailant decides to end the assault. Or when the assailant is rendered incapable of continuing the assault.
Click to expand...


Right, I have no way of knowing if the murderer was still in danger, but you do know that the girlfriend wasn't in danger.  Got it


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder




Being pushed on pavement in an attack could be grounds for lawful lethal self-defense.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
Click to expand...


The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
   It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.
> 
> So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race.  I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence.  George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.
> 
> I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over.  You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy.  Those are entirely different.
> 
> Every situation isn't about race.  Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real.  We continue to see it happen everyday.  I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon.  I mean fucking seriously?  Over a coupon?  Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game.  Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm.  This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is real?
Click to expand...


That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.


----------



## kaz

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
Click to expand...


Yes, exactly.  HereWeGoAgain had to get that was my answer.  He's not as dense as he's pretending to be


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no idea what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a parrot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time.  My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on.  You don't have to agree with my answer.  If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it.  But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.
> 
> Funny how that works, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you continuing to ask the same question isn't parroting, only when you get the same answer to the same question.  Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer makes no sense.
> You claim to know what was said between the two when thats impossible.
> Non of us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

kaz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First: that woman was NOT "parked" in a handicapped spot. She was STANDING. There's a difference, and no one gets arrested or a ticket for standing (meaning a qualified driver is in the standing car and can move it if an authority demands). That's why, presumably, she was in the car while boyfriend picked something up. Irrelevant anyway: it's not an offense anyone gets arrested for, and I know because people do it all the time where I live. It's hard to blame them, too ----------- eight empty places empty all the time right by the door? Darn.
> 
> Second: that guy was looking to shoot someone. He wanted to kill, kill, blood in his teeth. He was one angry guy.
> 
> Were these white guys or black guys or Cuban or something? Anyone know? Hard to tell from the video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the video is quite clear.  The murderer was white and the victim was black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your assertion is that the alledged white guy was stalking the alledged black people, and using the parking spot as the starter ??? Hope not, and hopefully if race was a factor in the case, then it needs to be qualified as such in the proper legal proceedings, and not on the street in speculation of or in rumor of.  Hope that you are not interjecting race where not credible in the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  I answered the question asked.  What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so a no assertion was made beyond the answer you gave to the question.. Got it.. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what that is supposed to mean.  I answered the question asked
Click to expand...

I know, and my apologies for thinking there was an assertion being made or inserted, as I hadn't seen the question of the other poster.. Thanks.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.



Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.

It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
Click to expand...


Supposed to be trained?

Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?


----------



## Lewdog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
Click to expand...


No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "murder" shown on the video. Unless you meant to post this in another thread. Feel free to post a link for clarification of your post if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
Click to expand...


  That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.
> 
> So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race.  I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence.  George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.
> 
> I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over.  You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy.  Those are entirely different.
> 
> Every situation isn't about race.  Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real.  We continue to see it happen everyday.  I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon.  I mean fucking seriously?  Over a coupon?  Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game.  Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm.  This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.
Click to expand...


So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon?  It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut.  A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.

The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do.  If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame.  Facts aren't racist.

However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation.  It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer




Probably.     Now if I could only figure out what the factual answer IS. I guess at this point I'm so confused I'm waiting for some sort of media or police confirmation about race. Though considering the Zimmerman case I might have to wait several weeks. They showed that Trayvon character as a 12-year-old for several DAYS after the shooting. But he was grown and one bad character who had all sorts of stolen goods on him right in school, before he was expelled.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
Click to expand...



"Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."


----------



## Wry Catcher

OODA_Loop said:


> The guy took the round to the chest.  He was square to the shooter.
> 
> 
> ​



So?  If he shot him in the back you would have another opinion?


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
Click to expand...

The two are separate events. One was an interaction between the victim, and the woman. Then the assailant created another scenario between the assailant, and the victim. To his credit the victim compartmentalized them well. He maintained only verbal with the woman, and defended himself a against violence, with violence. He never allowed these one event to bleed back into the first.
The second event was entirely violent, and initiated by the assailant. It was ended as it began with violence from the victim. I don't grant any sympathy to the assailant just because, he may have thought that he might get away with it. It was poor judgment on his part. It doesn't appear that he expected to get shot for assaulting the man.Turns out he was wrong.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy took the round to the chest.  He was square to the shooter.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  If he shot him in the back you would have another opinion?
Click to expand...

Of course


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Wry Catcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy took the round to the chest.  He was square to the shooter.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  If he shot him in the back you would have another opinion?
Click to expand...


    I know I would.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> 
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
Click to expand...


A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides


----------



## OODA_Loop

Wry Catcher said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy took the round to the chest.  He was square to the shooter.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  If he shot him in the back you would have another opinion?
Click to expand...


Would add credence to a retreat.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
Click to expand...

You are getting away from the actions of the shooter, the time line, and the emotional aspects involved during the exchange between the two people directly involved in the incident. The lead up is immaterial at this point, because the shooting is what is being assessed in the case right ?


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a parrot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time.  My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on.  You don't have to agree with my answer.  If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it.  But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.
> 
> Funny how that works, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, you mentioned that.  You parroting the same point is not parroting.  Me giving you the same answer to the same point is parroting.  We've covered this ground, my friend


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
Click to expand...


   Oh bullshit!


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides



If she shot him for just yelling she would be arrested.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a parrot?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time.  My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on.  You don't have to agree with my answer.  If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it.  But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.
> 
> Funny how that works, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned that.  You parroting the same point is not parroting.  Me giving you the same answer to the same point is parroting.  We've covered this ground, my friend
Click to expand...


  In your mind maybe.


----------



## Wry Catcher

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
Click to expand...


Having stolen goods on him at school has become a capital crime?  That dog won't hunt.  Give the shooter the needle.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Wry Catcher said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having stolen goods on him at school has become a capital crime?  That dog won't hunt.  Give the shooter the needle.
Click to expand...


  WTF?
Kinda early to be drinking dont ya think?


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The two are separate events. One was an interaction between the victim, and the woman. Then the assailant created another scenario between the assailant, and the victim. To his credit the victim compartmentalized them well. He maintained only verbal with the woman, and defended himself a against violence, with violence. He never allowed these one event to bleed back into the first.
> The second event was entirely violent, and initiated by the assailant. It was ended as it began with violence from the victim. I don't grant any sympathy to the assailant just because, he may have thought that he might get away with it. It was poor judgment on his part. It doesn't appear that he expected to get shot for assaulting the man.Turns out he was wrong.
Click to expand...


Bull shit, there weren't separate events.  There was one scenario initiated by the murderer


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably.     Now if I could only figure out what the factual answer IS. I guess at this point I'm so confused I'm waiting for some sort of media or police confirmation about race. Though considering the Zimmerman case I might have to wait several weeks. They showed that Trayvon character as a 12-year-old for several DAYS after the shooting. But he was grown and one bad character who had all sorts of stolen goods on him right in school, before he was expelled.
Click to expand...


I already answered your question and you were a total bitch about the answer.  I don't know how you can't tell race on a video, but whatever


----------



## beagle9

Circe said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.
> 
> I think I'll start doing that.
Click to expand...

If she would have reached for a weapon out of fear, and he saw this, what do you think he would have done ??


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back.  Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted.  That's murder one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot.  Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.
> 
> We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored.  It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation.  Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit!
Click to expand...


So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.

As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit


----------



## OODA_Loop

Reinforces for me how ineffective handgun rounds can be to stop an attack.

He could have closed and attacked further after taking a round COM


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds.  A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.
> 
> So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight.  That undermines their stance on gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race.  I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence.  George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.
> 
> I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over.  You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy.  Those are entirely different.
> 
> Every situation isn't about race.  Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real.  We continue to see it happen everyday.  I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon.  I mean fucking seriously?  Over a coupon?  Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game.  Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm.  This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon?  It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut.  A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.
> 
> The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do.  If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame.  Facts aren't racist.
> 
> However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation.  It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder
Click to expand...


No... you didn't see it?  A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it.  She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did.  He  literally called the cops on her because of a coupon.  He is on video too.  He got fired. 

There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think.  And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation.  Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.



Would not go hands on or lethal for just words.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time.  My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on.  You don't have to agree with my answer.  If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it.  But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.
> 
> Funny how that works, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned that.  You parroting the same point is not parroting.  Me giving you the same answer to the same point is parroting.  We've covered this ground, my friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your mind maybe.
Click to expand...


Beagle already explained my point to you.  But you don't even know what my answer means?  I find that impossible to believe.

So again, I'll walk you through this since you claim it keeps going over your head.

What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one  minute mark of the video?  What happens then?

Once you know that, I'll walk you through what it means to your question


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> What is real?



I love questions like this. 

What's real is whatever we each think is real. We live in private reality bubbles. We decide what is real in concurrence with our general ideas about the world. We can change our reality with data ---- if we believe the data. Right now, not enough good data. Could be awhile, too.


----------



## Lewdog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you dumb?  The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not.  It's not fucking changing the law.  Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
Click to expand...


You aren't saying the whole quote.  You guys really love to cherrypick don't you?  Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion?  It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.
> 
> But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.
> 
> These types are probably best avoided...…...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot.  Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.
> 
> We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored.  It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation.  Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.
Click to expand...




You don't know what the victims family had to do with the shooting?  OMG, that's priceless


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race.  I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence.  George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.
> 
> I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over.  You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy.  Those are entirely different.
> 
> Every situation isn't about race.  Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real.  We continue to see it happen everyday.  I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon.  I mean fucking seriously?  Over a coupon?  Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game.  Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm.  This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon?  It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut.  A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.
> 
> The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do.  If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame.  Facts aren't racist.
> 
> However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation.  It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... you didn't see it?  A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it.  She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did.  He  literally called the cops on her because of a coupon.  He is on video too.  He got fired.
> 
> There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think.  And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation.  Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?
Click to expand...


I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?  

And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one  minute mark of the video?  What happens then?



You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This cat if proven to be a stalker for a kill, is the poster boy for not issuing permits for concealed carry to just anyone in society without the proper vetting of the applicant through checking out his friends and family members for character and mental stability issues going back say 10 years or more maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or he could have had a FL permit for decades and until someone attacked him never had an issue.
Click to expand...

Otherwise there should be an anual reassessment of ones background to ensure the mental stability of the permit holder or is that the case already ?  If it is the case I wonder if this cat somehow fell through a crack if his mental was deteriorating.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
Click to expand...

"By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one  minute mark of the video?  What happens then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video and tell me what happens


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?



Yeah...…..we may be premature considering race at all in this thread. I'm not usually pious about that, but there is just too much going on in this situation.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.
Click to expand...


On the other hand, while you hold the victim to this massive standard, the shooter who initiated the whole thing capping a guy who shoved him for threatening his woman and backing off is just fine.

Your standards are massively double


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...…..we may be premature considering race at all in this thread. I'm not usually pious about that, but there is just too much going on in this situation.
Click to expand...


I don't see what race has to do with it at all


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
Click to expand...

That is categorically false.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Otherwise there should be an annual reassessment of ones background to ensure the mental stability of the permit holder or is that the case already ?  If it is the case I wonder if this cat somehow fell through a crack if his mental was deteriorating.




Nothing of the sort disclosed.  But don't let that stop you from casting from your hypotheticals.


----------



## Circe

kaz said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one  minute mark of the video?  What happens then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and tell me what happens
Click to expand...



Naaaaaaaah, it's your court, your ball. You keep bringing it up, mysteriously. You can't give people homework assignments on threads, really. Make your claim. I did watch it earlier, and whatever you saw (and by now I have no idea WHAT that was relating to) I didn't see anything except what I've already described. The speed of the event is what impressed me: it was a doom.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.
> 
> I think I'll start doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.
Click to expand...

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The two are separate events. One was an interaction between the victim, and the woman. Then the assailant created another scenario between the assailant, and the victim. To his credit the victim compartmentalized them well. He maintained only verbal with the woman, and defended himself a against violence, with violence. He never allowed these one event to bleed back into the first.
> The second event was entirely violent, and initiated by the assailant. It was ended as it began with violence from the victim. I don't grant any sympathy to the assailant just because, he may have thought that he might get away with it. It was poor judgment on his part. It doesn't appear that he expected to get shot for assaulting the man.Turns out he was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit, there weren't separate events.  There was one scenario initiated by the murderer
Click to expand...

Wrong. And the primary act of violence was initiated by the assailant. And it cost him his life. Raising one's voice is not an act of violence.


----------



## Circe

OODA_Loop said:


> Being pushed on pavement in an attack could be grounds for lawful lethal self-defense.



Well, duh. Of course it is!

He'll get off, IMO, but he's still a rotten person.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise there should be an annual reassessment of ones background to ensure the mental stability of the permit holder or is that the case already ?  If it is the case I wonder if this cat somehow fell through a crack if his mental was deteriorating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing of the sort disclosed.  But don't let that stop you from casting from your hypotheticals.
Click to expand...

Are we here to improve life and security in this country or to ignore it ??


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.
> 
> I think I'll start doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made.
Click to expand...

There's a lot going wrong with that post.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made.



Arguing over a parking space does not warrant a hands on attack.  Shoving someone onto the pavement can be lethal.

That escalation got him shot.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Are we here to improve life and security in this country or to ignore it ??




Help me understand what that means ?


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot.  Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.
> 
> We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored.  It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation.  Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the victims family had to do with the shooting?  OMG, that's priceless
Click to expand...

While I'm sure they may be concerned about him having to be run through the legal wringer to disprove the charges, which as of yet,thavent been brought against him... They have no relevance to the incident itself.


----------



## Circe

beagle9 said:


> The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made.



Maybe he'll pay...….but not in a Florida court, I bet. I was much impressed by his being knocked to the pavement so fast, and shooting back so fast. He's a bad guy, but yeah, he was in fear for his life. Or at least he could make that a darn good excuse. The video works for the shooter.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.
Click to expand...

Emotions run high when you see someone attacking your family member whether verbally or physically. She may have been innocent because she was told to pull into the parking space by her boyfriend or husband, and that could have added to his rage when saw the shooter verbally assaulting her about the parking spot.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real.  We continue to see it happen everyday.  I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon.  I mean fucking seriously?  Over a coupon?  Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game.  Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm.  This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon?  It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut.  A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.
> 
> The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do.  If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame.  Facts aren't racist.
> 
> However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation.  It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... you didn't see it?  A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it.  She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did.  He  literally called the cops on her because of a coupon.  He is on video too.  He got fired.
> 
> There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think.  And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation.  Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?
> 
> And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing
Click to expand...


No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.  NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED.  Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service.  If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.

CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video

Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.

Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool

White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.

Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm

These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.



The inverse is as true.  So what.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
Click to expand...


     I'm not a savage.
I would have simply got back in the car and left.
  Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, while you hold the victim to this massive standard, the shooter who initiated the whole thing capping a guy who shoved him for threatening his woman and backing off is just fine.
> 
> Your standards are massively double
Click to expand...

Without concise and clear audio, you have no way to demonstrate that the woman was being threatened. That's pure conjecture. What the video does however clearly show, is that the assailant was never threatened by the victim, until the assault began.
Try it this way....
Watch the video again from the begining, and press pause at the very first crime committed in it.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inverse is as true.  So what.
Click to expand...


It is?!?!  

Show me some examples.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned that.  You parroting the same point is not parroting.  Me giving you the same answer to the same point is parroting.  We've covered this ground, my friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your mind maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beagle already explained my point to you.  But you don't even know what my answer means?  I find that impossible to believe.
> 
> So again, I'll walk you through this since you claim it keeps going over your head.
> 
> What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one  minute mark of the video?  What happens then?
> 
> Once you know that, I'll walk you through what it means to your question
Click to expand...


  You're insinuating that you know what was said.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Show me some examples.



4 Black Suspects Charged in Videotaped Beating of White Teenager in Chicago


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.
> 
> I think I'll start doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.
Click to expand...

It isn't against the law to talk to strangers.


----------



## OODA_Loop

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me some examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 Black Suspects Charged in Videotaped Beating of White Teenager in Chicago
Click to expand...

‘You Voted Trump?’ Black Mob Viciously Beats White Trump Voter


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotions run high when you see someone attacking your family member whether verbally or physically. She may have been innocent because she was told to pull into the parking space by her boyfriend or husband, and that could have added to his rage when saw the shooter verbally assaulting her about the parking spot.
Click to expand...

No one attacked anyone's family member in this instance...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
> The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
> You said no one understood the law ...
> And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.
> 
> If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
> Means you have a better understand of the law ...
> Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...
> 
> You are stupid ...
> Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.
> 
> .​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't saying the whole quote.  You guys really love to cherrypick don't you?  Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion?  It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.
Click to expand...


  Stop lying.

"Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.

“I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video.
> 
> And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you?   A man views it the reverse, just so you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family.  That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot.  Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotions run high when you see someone attacking your family member whether verbally or physically. She may have been innocent because she was told to pull into the parking space by her boyfriend or husband, and that could have added to his rage when saw the shooter verbally assaulting her about the parking spot.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "verbal assault" in Florida law. Nor are you allowed to commit violence against others for what you personally determine to be "verbal assault".


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me some examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 Black Suspects Charged in Videotaped Beating of White Teenager in Chicago
Click to expand...


That's nowhere near what I'm talking about, and I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth listing crimes by people from all different races.


----------



## Lewdog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not.  He is not saying what the guy did was legal.  He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.
> 
> Holy shit.  This isn't that complicated.  Stupid?  My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it.  The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't saying the whole quote.  You guys really love to cherrypick don't you?  Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion?  It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> "Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.
> 
> “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."
Click to expand...


Read the last sentence.  Again, do you not understand?  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> That's nowhere near what I'm talking about, and I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth listing crimes by people from all different races.



Show some instances of black people beating other black people up for political choices.

The point =  _different treatment due to race._


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> [  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.



If it is that unclear to prevent arrest its going nowhere.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I think even if he is not charged the law will be changed. You have an obligation as a CC owner to not start an incident. Standing your ground in your residence is one thing, this is quite another.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nowhere near what I'm talking about, and I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth listing crimes by people from all different races.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show some instances of black people beating other black people up for political choices.
> 
> The point =  _different treatment due to race._
Click to expand...


Why does it have to be for political choices?  My examples I gave in this thread had nothing to do with political choices.  One was over sock, one was over a coupon, and one was over sleeping on a couch.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.




Fear of great bodily harm or death does.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Why does it have to be for political choices?  My examples I gave in this thread had nothing to do with political choices.  One was over sock, one was over a coupon, and one was over sleeping on a couch.




The point is the difference in treatment due to race is multilateral.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is that unclear to prevent arrest its going nowhere.
Click to expand...


SHERIFFS DON'T DECIDE WHETHER TO INDICT SOMEONE FOR A CRIME!  Jesus fucking Christ you people are dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## Vastator

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is that unclear to prevent arrest its going nowhere.
Click to expand...

The debate about “feelings” versus the facts shown in the video; amongst we here on this thread are a good indicator of how this might play out in front of a jury. Which could be a reason why the victim might not be charged...


----------



## OODA_Loop

Manonthestreet said:


> I think even if he is not charged the law will be changed. You have an obligation as a CC owner to not start an incident. Standing your ground in your residence is one thing, this is quite another.



The shooter didn't instigate violence - he responded to violence.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
Click to expand...

Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be for political choices?  My examples I gave in this thread had nothing to do with political choices.  One was over sock, one was over a coupon, and one was over sleeping on a couch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is the difference in treatment due to race is multilateral.
Click to expand...


No it isn't.  For you to get examples you said it had to be based on political position.

The examples I gave were for dumb shit.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
> It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't saying the whole quote.  You guys really love to cherrypick don't you?  Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion?  It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> "Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.
> 
> “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the last sentence.  Again, do you not understand?  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.
Click to expand...


    Than why didnt he arrest him and hold him until the SA made his ruling?
    The Sheriff has said repeatedly that his actions were within SYG laws.
   It's all over the fuken internet for Christ sake.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> SHERIFFS DON'T DECIDE WHETHER TO INDICT SOMEONE FOR A CRIME!  Jesus fucking Christ you people are dumb as a box of rocks.




Sheriffs do effect arrests.  Not in this case due to the reasonable doubt of a SYG defense.


----------



## Manonthestreet

OODA_Loop said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think even if he is not charged the law will be changed. You have an obligation as a CC owner to not start an incident. Standing your ground in your residence is one thing, this is quite another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter didn't instigate violence - he responded to violence.
Click to expand...

Someone harasses my wife......they better step back real quick before I get there. Mr do gooder civic duty guy was clear instigator...go to jail.....


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think even if he is not charged the law will be changed. You have an obligation as a CC owner to not start an incident. Standing your ground in your residence is one thing, this is quite another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter didn't instigate violence - he responded to violence.
Click to expand...

Engaging a woman (being a man) who was a complete stranger over a handicap spot could cause any number of reactions by her husband, boyfriend, by standers etc.


----------



## Lewdog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide.  Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't saying the whole quote.  You guys really love to cherrypick don't you?  Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion?  It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> "Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.
> 
> “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the last sentence.  Again, do you not understand?  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why didnt he arrest him and hold him until the SA made his ruling?
> The Sheriff has said repeatedly that his actions were within SYG laws.
> It's all over the fuken internet for Christ sake.
Click to expand...


I told you why... it's not clear cut enough for him to arrest him without the fucking prosecutor deciding if it fits the law or not.  Not everyone that gets charged with a crime and goes to criminal court gets arrested at the time the crime takes place.  Please tell me you know this.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
Click to expand...

Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??


----------



## OODA_Loop

Manonthestreet said:


> Someone harasses my wife......they better step back real quick before I get there. Mr do gooder civic duty guy was clear instigator...go to jail.....



I would recommend drawing from your kindergarten experience and not attacking someone for words.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't saying the whole quote.  You guys really love to cherrypick don't you?  Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion?  It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> "Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.
> 
> “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the last sentence.  Again, do you not understand?  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why didnt he arrest him and hold him until the SA made his ruling?
> The Sheriff has said repeatedly that his actions were within SYG laws.
> It's all over the fuken internet for Christ sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why... it's not clear cut enough for him to arrest him without the fucking prosecutor deciding if it fits the law or not.  Not everyone that gets charged with a crime and goes to criminal court gets arrested at the time the crime takes place.  Please tell me you know this.
Click to expand...


  The Sheriff has said repeatedly that the shooting falls inline with SYG laws.
   In fact it's all over the internet.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> SHERIFFS DON'T DECIDE WHETHER TO INDICT SOMEONE FOR A CRIME!  Jesus fucking Christ you people are dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheriffs do effect arrests.  Not in this case due to the reasonable doubt of a SYG defense.
Click to expand...


First, it would be 'affect' not 'effect.'  Secondly, there has to be enough probable cause for the sheriff to arrest a person on the spot given the evidence at hand at the time.  When it comes to a situation like this, where the law needs to be interpreted by the prosecutor, the sheriff doesn't arrest them.  Ok.  I'm done, if you guys don't understand how simple civics and law work by now, you never will.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Engaging a woman (being a man) who was a complete stranger over a handicap spot could cause any number of reactions by her husband, boyfriend, by standers etc.



Responding with violence can get your arrested or worse.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> First, it would be 'affect' not 'effect.'  Secondly, there has to be enough probable cause for the sheriff to arrest a person on the spot given the evidence at hand at the time.  When it comes to a situation like this, where the law needs to be interpreted by the prosecutor, the sheriff doesn't arrest them.  Ok.  I'm done, if you guys don't understand how simple civics and law work by now, you never will.



If it was clearly murder  the Sherrif would have arrested.   Not in this case.


----------



## Manonthestreet

OODA_Loop said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone harasses my wife......they better step back real quick before I get there. Mr do gooder civic duty guy was clear instigator...go to jail.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend drawing from your kindergarten experience and not attacking someone for words.
Click to expand...

Fighten words.….Law will be changed...…….guy must have been bothering her for some time to get her worked up enough and then to stand there as boy friend appears...he wanted a fight.....


----------



## Lewdog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't saying the whole quote.  You guys really love to cherrypick don't you?  Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion?  It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> "Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.
> 
> “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the last sentence.  Again, do you not understand?  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why didnt he arrest him and hold him until the SA made his ruling?
> The Sheriff has said repeatedly that his actions were within SYG laws.
> It's all over the fuken internet for Christ sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why... it's not clear cut enough for him to arrest him without the fucking prosecutor deciding if it fits the law or not.  Not everyone that gets charged with a crime and goes to criminal court gets arrested at the time the crime takes place.  Please tell me you know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff has said repeatedly that the shooting falls inline with SYG laws.
> In fact it's all over the internet.
Click to expand...


He's not in the position to make that final decision.  That's obvious by the fact HE SAID HE IS PASSING THE EVIDENCE OVER TO THE PEOPLE HE SAID MAKES THE FUCKING DECISION.  It's in his fucking statement that you even posted.  

Do you read what you post?

“I’m not saying I agree with it, but *I don’t make that call*,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now *forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision*."


----------



## OODA_Loop

Manonthestreet said:


> Fighten words.….Law will be changed...…….guy must have been bothering here for some time to get her worked up enough and then to stand there as boy friend appears...he wanted a fight.....



Not enough cause for arrest,   Nothing will happen.

Get touchy you get what you get.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> He's not in the position to make that final decision.  That's obvious by the fact HE SAID HE IS PASSING THE EVIDENCE OVER TO THE PEOPLE HE SAID MAKES THE FUCKING DECISION.  It's in his fucking statement that you even posted.



Sheriff makes the initial investigatory decision, _ In this case = no arrest,_

Telling.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> "Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.
> 
> “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the last sentence.  Again, do you not understand?  It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case.  He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not.  The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not....  This is basic civics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why didnt he arrest him and hold him until the SA made his ruling?
> The Sheriff has said repeatedly that his actions were within SYG laws.
> It's all over the fuken internet for Christ sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why... it's not clear cut enough for him to arrest him without the fucking prosecutor deciding if it fits the law or not.  Not everyone that gets charged with a crime and goes to criminal court gets arrested at the time the crime takes place.  Please tell me you know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Sheriff has said repeatedly that the shooting falls inline with SYG laws.
> In fact it's all over the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not in the position to make that final decision.  That's obvious by the fact HE SAID HE IS PASSING THE EVIDENCE OVER TO THE PEOPLE HE SAID MAKES THE FUCKING DECISION.  It's in his fucking statement that you even posted.
> 
> Do you read what you post?
> 
> “I’m not saying I agree with it, but *I don’t make that call*,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now *forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision*."
Click to expand...


  Which of course I've stated multiple times.


----------



## Circe

Okay, I went to some local news sources in Clearwater. So the dead guy was black, as was the whole family (all three children were there! two were in the car with the mom. The couple had been together nine years. It was a male-headed household with small children. It's so sad.). The shooter was white, one Michael Drejka. 

A black guy, Rich Kelly, told the local TV news station that a month ago the same guy also harassed him about that handicapped parking space: Kelly was also parking in it. He said the white guy said he'd call his company and tell on him..

From www.tampabay.com: "A couple of months back, Rick Kelly stopped by the store, parking his tanker truck in the same handicap spot.

"The details to Thursday’s incident are similar: Drejka walking around the truck checking for decals, then confronting Kelly, 31, about why he parked there. The fight escalated, and Drejka threatened to shoot him, Kelly said."

Kelly said he thought it was a racially motivated incident. They didn't get into a physical fight (Kelly is pretty big).

Could be race. But it's all so focused on that handicapped parking space issue that I am not convinced that race matters. The guy Drejka (age 47) seems to have just been completely nuts on the subject of people following the rules on those parking spaces!

Interestingly, while the station said the shooter, Michael Drejka, was white, so far I cannot find any identified photos of him. Usually these come up pretty fast. Off the grid?

Same site, www.tampabay.com:  "Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges."


----------



## Manonthestreet

OODA_Loop said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fighten words.….Law will be changed...…….guy must have been bothering here for some time to get her worked up enough and then to stand there as boy friend appears...he wanted a fight.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough cause for arrest,   Nothing will happen.
> 
> Get touchy you get what you get.
Click to expand...

You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….


----------



## G.T.

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Manonthestreet said:


> You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….



Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
Click to expand...

Sure as shit does.  I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.



Cops didn't arrest - so probably not.


----------



## Manonthestreet

OODA_Loop said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.
Click to expand...

Which isn't what happened here...ooooops


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not in the position to make that final decision.  That's obvious by the fact HE SAID HE IS PASSING THE EVIDENCE OVER TO THE PEOPLE HE SAID MAKES THE FUCKING DECISION.  It's in his fucking statement that you even posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheriff makes the initial investigatory decision, _ In this case = no arrest,_
> 
> Telling.
Click to expand...


No it isn't telling.  In LOTS of crimes people go to prison even though they were not arrested when the crime first occurred, especially in a case like this one.


----------



## G.T.

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cops didn't arrest - so probably not.
Click to expand...

Because they planned to refer the case to the appropriate specialists in applying the Law.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Manonthestreet said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which isn't what happened here...ooooops
Click to expand...


Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.


----------



## G.T.

Lewdog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not in the position to make that final decision.  That's obvious by the fact HE SAID HE IS PASSING THE EVIDENCE OVER TO THE PEOPLE HE SAID MAKES THE FUCKING DECISION.  It's in his fucking statement that you even posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheriff makes the initial investigatory decision, _ In this case = no arrest,_
> 
> Telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't telling.  In LOTS of crimes people go to prison even though they were not arrested when the crime first occurred, especially in a case like this one.
Click to expand...

Them hanging their hats on that arent going to prevent the conviction. The man was backing away from the guy as the gun was being pulled - only a blood lusting oddball would think its THEN appropriate to pull a trigger and end a life. Folks with this mentality dont belong owning deadly weapons, theyre irresponsible, emotional and irrational


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.
> 
> I think I'll start doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't against the law to talk to strangers.
Click to expand...

Talk ??


----------



## Vastator

CHAZBUKOWSKI said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure as shit does.  I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason
Click to expand...

Anyone who would let possession a weapon influence their behavior, or demeanor; shouldn’t be carrying one in my opinion. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I prefer to conduct myself cordially whether I’m armed, or not. Because you never know if the person you are talking to is armed, or not. But that’s just me...


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> No it isn't telling.  In LOTS of crimes people go to prison even though they were not arrested when the crime first occurred, especially in a case like this one.




Not really for ones where the shooter and deceased remain on scene and there is video showing what happened.

There was no doubt who did the shooting.

If no one gets arrested = telling.


----------



## Lewdog

G.T. said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cops didn't arrest - so probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they planned to refer the case to the appropriate specialists in applying the Law.
Click to expand...


I've been saying this for 4 pages now.  Sheriff's aren't lawyers who are able to interpret the law.  They only can enforce the law when there is a clear violation.  In a case like this all they can do is turn over evidence to a prosecutor who then interprets the law and decides whether to go for indictment or not.  They literally can't understand that.


----------



## Manonthestreet

OODA_Loop said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which isn't what happened here...ooooops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.
Click to expand...

here the guy didn't do as you said he should have......you admitted his guilt


----------



## Circe

Lewdog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheriffs do effect arrests.  Not in this case due to the reasonable doubt of a SYG defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, it would be 'affect' not 'effect.'
Click to expand...


No, effect is correct in this case. You really can't say sheriffs "affect" arrests. They either effect them or they don't arrest the guy. Sorry, you just hit my editor button.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Manonthestreet said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which isn't what happened here...ooooops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here the guy didn't do as you said he should have......you admitted his guilt
Click to expand...



It is not unlawful to yell or harangue someone ?   I commented as to my response = avoidance.   I apply the old "Sticks and Stones" truism


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's_ Beyond These Horizons,_ wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.
> 
> I think I'll start doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't against the law to talk to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk ??
Click to expand...

Or raise your voice, or even “SCREAM!!!”, if you prefer. Take your pick. What you say, shout, or scream however can matter quite a bit. And exactly what’s being said is unclear to all of us. Unless your privy to a transcript which as of yet, hasn’t been offered up...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest


----------



## Manonthestreet

OODA_Loop said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which isn't what happened here...ooooops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here the guy didn't do as you said he should have......you admitted his guilt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not unlawful to yell or harangue someone ?   I commented as to my response = avoidance.   I apply the old "Sticks and Stones" truism
Click to expand...

Repeat your mantra all you want....you admitted he didn't follow it


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> I've been saying this for 4 pages now.  Sheriff's aren't lawyers who are able to interpret the law.  They only can enforce the law when there is a clear violation.  I



Yes no clear violation - what more do you need >  What else would the state attorney rely on but what was discovered at investigation by the sheriff ?


----------



## G.T.

Lewdog said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cops didn't arrest - so probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they planned to refer the case to the appropriate specialists in applying the Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been saying this for 4 pages now.  Sheriff's aren't lawyers who are able to interpret the law.  They only can enforce the law when there is a clear violation.  In a case like this all they can do is turn over evidence to a prosecutor who then interprets the law and decides whether to go for indictment or not.  They literally can't understand that.
Click to expand...

Its going to be an easy case for the Jurors. The testimonials that the guy was previously threatening to shoot people over the parking space...the testimony of the store clerk, the guy that felt the situation was so severe that he ran into the store to grab the husband....the backwards steps as the gun was on its way out

This guy will thankfully be off the streets soon.


----------



## OODA_Loop

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest




Who will cure cancer now ?


----------



## Circe

Every woman wishes it WAS against the law to talk to strangers (us), be sure. This is why. The happy bullying hostility stuff, plus the sex approaches.


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> Its going to be an easy case for the Jurors.




But not easy for detectives or the Sheriff ?


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.


Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
Click to expand...


   There are a million Saint McGlocktons out there....one of em is sure to find a cure.
     ....before getting capped for being an asshole.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Manonthestreet said:


> Repeat your mantra all you want....you admitted he didn't follow it



Yes but his not following it was not illegal ?

Tactically unsound IMHO, but not illegal.  It is why he wasn't arrested.


----------



## Circe

OODA_Loop said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
Click to expand...



Drug arrest in 2008, I read in that new article quoted above. Charges were dropped. And that's it for him, as far as they said: the Drejka character got into more trouble than the black guy. Okay, no Saint McGlockton carry-on because that's how we got into so much confusion with the Trayvon Martin case. He was presented by the lying media as a saint, but wow, he was just a thug, turned out. I just feel bad because it's so sad about the mom and the three little kids. And McGlockton was defending them! Darn.


----------



## G.T.

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its going to be an easy case for the Jurors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not easy for detectives or the Sheriff ?
Click to expand...

Correct, this is under review of prosecutors ~ ultimately, the folks who make these decisions and the video and testimonies are pretty clear. He was a gun owner looking to aggravate a shooting per his previous threats to shoot folks over the spot....and he exercised trigger happiness when an event had finally occurred in shooting someone who was pacing backward as his gun was being drawn.

A human life was taken and its the guy who pulled the trigger that acted most hysterically and irrationally. Clearly


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Circe said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drug arrest in 2008, I read in that new article quoted above. Charges were dropped. And that's it for him: the Drejka character got into more trouble than the black guy. Okay, no Saint McGlockton carry-on because that's how we got into so much confusion with the Trayvon Martin case. He was presented by the lying media as a saint, but wow, he was just a thug, turned out. I just feel bad because it's so sad about the mom and the three little kids. And he was defending them! Darn.
Click to expand...



    But he was such a nice boy......

#1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC
*STATUTE: *784.045(1)(B)/F


#2 RESISTING ARREST W/VIOLENCE
*STATUTE: *843.01/F

*BOND: *$2500


#3 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
*STATUTE: *877.03/M


----------



## Circe

You know what?

This is high on the Google News headline list. I bet all over America people are staying out of those stupid handicapped parking places. It was probably a mistake mandating them: I always thought so. Too many. Maybe one or two would be okay, but eight???  They are ALWAYS empty. Too much of a temptation.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
> Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...
Click to expand...

Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass. 

Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Circe said:


> You know what?
> 
> This is high on the Google News headline list. I bet all over America people are staying out of those stupid handicapped parking places. It was probably a mistake mandating them: I always thought so. Too many. Maybe one or two would be okay, but eight???  They are ALWAYS empty. Too much of a temptation.



    They sure get used at the Wife and I's favorite Cajun joint.
They have I believe six of them..
   All parked in by what appear to be able bodied black people.
They hop out of their Escalades,Lexus and a host of other high end vehicles and waddle on in showing no signs of disability whatsoever.


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> Correct, this is under review of prosecutors ~ ultimately, the folks who make these decisions and the video and testimonies are pretty clear. He was a gun owner looking to aggravate a shooting per his previous threats to shoot folks over the spot....and he exercised trigger happiness when an event had finally occurred in shooting someone who was pacing backward as his gun was being drawn.
> 
> A human life was taken and its the guy who pulled the trigger that acted most hysterically and irrationally. Clearly



The prosecutors rely on investigatory discovery by detectives including video.   The fact they didn't arrest when the Sheriff wanted to speaks volumes.

Same as Zimmerman when everyone was so sure.    That case came down to the fact Martin attacking Zimmerman.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
> Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.
> 
> Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.
Click to expand...

But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said I don't know what the guy was thinking.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is categorically false.
Click to expand...


Again, you already admitted it wasn't, that you and your wife would both take it as threatening.

No long term memory?


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it illegal either

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead


----------



## kaz

Circe said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one  minute mark of the video?  What happens then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and tell me what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Naaaaaaaah, it's your court, your ball. You keep bringing it up, mysteriously. You can't give people homework assignments on threads, really. Make your claim. I did watch it earlier, and whatever you saw (and by now I have no idea WHAT that was relating to) I didn't see anything except what I've already described. The speed of the event is what impressed me: it was a doom.
Click to expand...


OK, got it


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
> Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.
> 
> Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.
Click to expand...

Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.
Click to expand...


Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The two are separate events. One was an interaction between the victim, and the woman. Then the assailant created another scenario between the assailant, and the victim. To his credit the victim compartmentalized them well. He maintained only verbal with the woman, and defended himself a against violence, with violence. He never allowed these one event to bleed back into the first.
> The second event was entirely violent, and initiated by the assailant. It was ended as it began with violence from the victim. I don't grant any sympathy to the assailant just because, he may have thought that he might get away with it. It was poor judgment on his part. It doesn't appear that he expected to get shot for assaulting the man.Turns out he was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit, there weren't separate events.  There was one scenario initiated by the murderer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. And the primary act of violence was initiated by the assailant. And it cost him his life. Raising one's voice is not an act of violence.
Click to expand...


Again the flagrant hypocrisy that you hold the victim to an incredibly high standard and the shooter to none at all


----------



## sealybobo

kaz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just ran this scenario by my dad. He said of course he’d shoot someone who violently threw him to the ground. What more does he need to do to me before I get to shoot?
> 
> I think the message behind stand your ground is keep your hands off people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mention the part to your dad where in the scenario he is in the parking lot screaming at the guys wife when he came out of the store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Then he back peddled but still he had no right to escalate from words to physical. Even if someone’s screaming at my wife I don’t have the right to punch the screamer. You ever argue with someone’s mother or wife?
> 
> Like I said the lesson should be don’t touch people but some people deserve to be punched. But if they have a gun they might also have the right to strike back the only way they can.
> 
> I would find the guy guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that your father said that if he was screaming at a woman in a parking lot and her boyfriend came out and shoved him, your father said he'd waste his sorry ass because he deserves to die and he wouldn't think twice.
> 
> Just making sure I understand
Click to expand...

I just asked him and he said no.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the store owner possibly know what was said?
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is categorically false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you already admitted it wasn't, that you and your wife would both take it as threatening.
> 
> No long term memory?
Click to expand...

I think you have me confused with another poster...


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The two are separate events. One was an interaction between the victim, and the woman. Then the assailant created another scenario between the assailant, and the victim. To his credit the victim compartmentalized them well. He maintained only verbal with the woman, and defended himself a against violence, with violence. He never allowed these one event to bleed back into the first.
> The second event was entirely violent, and initiated by the assailant. It was ended as it began with violence from the victim. I don't grant any sympathy to the assailant just because, he may have thought that he might get away with it. It was poor judgment on his part. It doesn't appear that he expected to get shot for assaulting the man.Turns out he was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit, there weren't separate events.  There was one scenario initiated by the murderer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. And the primary act of violence was initiated by the assailant. And it cost him his life. Raising one's voice is not an act of violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the flagrant hypocrisy that you hold the victim to an incredibly high standard and the shooter to none at all
Click to expand...

The shooter IS the victim. Did you even watch the video?


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot.  How is that possibly unclear to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot.  Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.
> 
> We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored.  It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation.  Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the victims family had to do with the shooting?  OMG, that's priceless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I'm sure they may be concerned about him having to be run through the legal wringer to disprove the charges, which as of yet,thavent been brought against him... They have no relevance to the incident itself.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?  We were talking about the victim's family, not the shooters family


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
Click to expand...


Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?

An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon?  It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut.  A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.
> 
> The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do.  If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame.  Facts aren't racist.
> 
> However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation.  It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... you didn't see it?  A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it.  She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did.  He  literally called the cops on her because of a coupon.  He is on video too.  He got fired.
> 
> There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think.  And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation.  Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?
> 
> And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.  NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED.  Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service.  If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.
> 
> CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video
> 
> Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.
> 
> Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool
> 
> White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.
> 
> Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm
> 
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.
Click to expand...


And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)."  How does that make sense?  Are blacks racist?  Is that why they do it?


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would accost a woman and physically assault someone else got dead



No, it was the other way around. It was the bad white guy who shot the good black father-of-family. It's a BAD narrative, but it appears to have happened that way.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
> Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.
> 
> Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.
Click to expand...

The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
Click to expand...


Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening


----------



## Lewdog

Circe said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheriffs do effect arrests.  Not in this case due to the reasonable doubt of a SYG defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, it would be 'affect' not 'effect.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, effect is correct in this case. You really can't say sheriffs "affect" arrests. They either effect them or they don't arrest the guy. Sorry, you just hit my editor button.
Click to expand...


"Affect is usually a verb, and it means to impact or change. Effect is usually a noun, an effect is the result of a change."

Affect vs. Effect

It is affect, not effect.  A sheriff "affects" an arrest because an arrest is a noun in that sentence not a verb.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?
> 
> 
> 
> Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot.  Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.
> 
> We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored.  It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation.  Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the victims family had to do with the shooting?  OMG, that's priceless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I'm sure they may be concerned about him having to be run through the legal wringer to disprove the charges, which as of yet,thavent been brought against him... They have no relevance to the incident itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  We were talking about the victim's family, not the shooters family
Click to expand...

The shooter IS the victim.


----------



## kaz

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone."  Screaming at someone isn't "tone."  Tone is the impression you're giving.  Screaming at someone is entirely different.  You used a word to create a false narrative.  That is a strawman
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, while you hold the victim to this massive standard, the shooter who initiated the whole thing capping a guy who shoved him for threatening his woman and backing off is just fine.
> 
> Your standards are massively double
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without concise and clear audio, you have no way to demonstrate that the woman was being threatened. That's pure conjecture. What the video does however clearly show, is that the assailant was never threatened by the victim, until the assault began.
> Try it this way....
> Watch the video again from the begining, and press pause at the very first crime committed in it.
Click to expand...


Again, I warned you.  I'm not putting you on ignore, but our discussion in this thread is over.  Again, that you keep bringing up that everything I say is conjecture while you're able to say what happened is ridiculous.  As is your assertion that everything needs to be proven in a message board discussion.

See you in another thread.  We likely agree with more than we disagree on


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would accost a woman and physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the other way around. It was the bad white guy who shot the good black father-of-family. It's a BAD narrative, but it appears to have happened that way.
Click to expand...


I saw the the guy forcibly shove the smaller man to the ground

the assault was initiated by the guy who got shot


----------



## Lewdog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a million Saint McGlocktons out there....one of em is sure to find a cure.
> ....before getting capped for being an asshole.
Click to expand...



Did you even read it?

The mugshot person was arrested when they were 18, and are now 28.  Their arrest is TEN years old.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.
> 
> I pointed out that you're massively contradictory.  The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, while you hold the victim to this massive standard, the shooter who initiated the whole thing capping a guy who shoved him for threatening his woman and backing off is just fine.
> 
> Your standards are massively double
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without concise and clear audio, you have no way to demonstrate that the woman was being threatened. That's pure conjecture. What the video does however clearly show, is that the assailant was never threatened by the victim, until the assault began.
> Try it this way....
> Watch the video again from the begining, and press pause at the very first crime committed in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I warned you.  I'm not putting you on ignore, but our discussion in this thread is over.  Again, that you keep bringing up that everything I say is conjecture while you're able to say what happened is ridiculous.  As is your assertion that everything needs to be proven in a message board discussion.
> 
> See you in another thread.  We likely agree with more than we disagree on
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


----------



## Circe

HereWeGoAgain said:


> They sure get used at the Wife and I's favorite Cajun joint.
> They have I believe six of them..
> All parked in by what appear to be able bodied black people.
> They hop out of their Escalades,Lexus and a host of other high end vehicles and waddle on in showing no signs of disability whatsoever.



Interesting post. This implies the blacks have figured out that they don't need to obey the rules, and they are probably right ---- well, except in Clearwater, FL. 

Though I doubt that habit actually works well for them, in general. Certainly it didn't work well in Clearwater.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
> Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.
> 
> Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.
Click to expand...

No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned that.  You parroting the same point is not parroting.  Me giving you the same answer to the same point is parroting.  We've covered this ground, my friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your mind maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beagle already explained my point to you.  But you don't even know what my answer means?  I find that impossible to believe.
> 
> So again, I'll walk you through this since you claim it keeps going over your head.
> 
> What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one  minute mark of the video?  What happens then?
> 
> Once you know that, I'll walk you through what it means to your question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're insinuating that you know what was said.
Click to expand...


That's a slant of what I'm arguing.

What am I insinuating I know?

What is my argument that is what was said?

Hint, Beagle already told you.  

Another hint.  It's butt obvious.

If you disagree with my point, argue my point.  Don't ignore it.  I have a pretty good reason to know what was said.  But you know that.  You're pretending to be dumb, but I know that you're not


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
Click to expand...


Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
> He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
Click to expand...


    So in response you escalate the situation?
How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again
Click to expand...



Oh yeah that's what usually happens in a fight right?  When you knock someone on the ground and gain an advantage, you back up to allow them to get up?  GTFO....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a million Saint McGlocktons out there....one of em is sure to find a cure.
> ....before getting capped for being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read it?
> 
> The mugshot person was arrested when they were 18, and are now 28.  Their arrest is TEN years old.
Click to expand...


   So?


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
> Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...
> 
> 
> 
> Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.
> 
> Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot
Click to expand...

There is no room for conjecture, and emotion in a debate whose outcome has such serious ramifications. Sorry bro. You know I love ya. But you’re straying far from the facts presented in the video, and falling back on emotion.


----------



## kaz

CHAZBUKOWSKI said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation there sport.  I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure as shit does.  I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason
Click to expand...


Thank you.  I can't believe any second amendment supporter wouldn't feel that way.

And in this case, the shooter did more than interject himself into a confrontation, he started it by yelling at the woman in the parking lot.

I always argue to leftists that they don't have actual standards because they only apply their standards to Republicans, never themselves.  A standard is something you apply to yourself first, or it's just an attack, not a standard.

That's why I won't back down from the argument that if you're carrying, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to avoid conflicts and you only produce the gun when you can't.  Screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot because you don't like where she parked isn't it


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon?  It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut.  A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.
> 
> The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do.  If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame.  Facts aren't racist.
> 
> However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation.  It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... you didn't see it?  A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it.  She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did.  He  literally called the cops on her because of a coupon.  He is on video too.  He got fired.
> 
> There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think.  And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation.  Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?
> 
> And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.  NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED.  Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service.  If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.
> 
> CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video
> 
> Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.
> 
> Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool
> 
> White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.
> 
> Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm
> 
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)."  How does that make sense?  Are blacks racist?  Is that why they do it?
Click to expand...


Again, WTF does murder have to do with an OLD Black woman with a coupon for depends, a guy wearing socks in a pool, and a young black girl sleeping on a couch at YALE have to do with worrying about being murdered?


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot




Which of these action warranted the use of lethal force to push the man onto the pavement ?


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.
> 
> Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.
> 
> 
> 
> But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no room for conjecture in a debate whose outcome has such serious ramifications. Sorry bro. You know I love ya. But you’re straying far from the facts presented in the video, and falling back on emotion.
Click to expand...

No, Im basing the determination on logic. Theres testimony that the man previously threatened to SHOOT someone over the parking spot, and theres a man who ran into the store to GET HELP, and theres a man who got shot on video walking backwards after pushing someone away from his family.

Any responsible gun owner should be appalled at this guy's blood lust, threats and provocations.


----------



## Circe

Lewdog said:


> "Affect is usually a verb, and it means to impact or change. Effect is usually a noun, an effect is the result of a change."
> 
> Affect vs. Effect
> 
> It is affect, not effect.  A sheriff "affects" an arrest because an arrest is a noun in that sentence not a verb.



Wrong. Both effect and affect are verbs (and nouns, depending). Effect as a verb means to do, as in "effect an arrest." As a noun effect means what happens: the effect of the tornado was broken buildings. Affect as a verb means the influence of something: the affect of screaming at women in parking lots can be negative. Affect as a noun usually means emotion, and is simply a technical term in psychology. He showed lack of affect despite having just killed a man.

Don't mess with the Editor.

Or criticize the grammar of  my posts, where I make as many errors as anyone else. No one can edit their own writing.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> That's why I won't back down from the argument that if you're carrying, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to avoid conflicts and you only produce the gun when you can't.  Screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot because you don't like where she parked isn't it



Wise to avoid conflicts but not required.   And if you get in a conflict that requires use of deadly force it doesn't mean your automatically wrong.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
Click to expand...


However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.

If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> CHAZBUKOWSKI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> 
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure as shit does.  I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I can't believe any second amendment supporter wouldn't feel that way.
> 
> And in this case, the shooter did more than interject himself into a confrontation, he started it by yelling at the woman in the parking lot.
> 
> I always argue to leftists that they don't have actual standards because they only apply their standards to Republicans, never themselves.  A standard is something you apply to yourself first, or it's just an attack, not a standard.
> 
> That's why I won't back down from the argument that if you're carrying, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to avoid conflicts and you only produce the gun when you can't.  Screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot because you don't like where she parked isn't it
Click to expand...

If ones standards of appropriate conduct change merely by possession of a weapon. The weapon should always be subservient to the will of the master. Not the other way around.


----------



## G.T.

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these action warranted the use of lethal force to push the man onto the pavement ?
Click to expand...

Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?

Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her.  It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation.  There is clear unequal force on the two sides
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
Click to expand...


I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic




i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon?  It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut.  A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.
> 
> The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do.  If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame.  Facts aren't racist.
> 
> However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation.  It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... you didn't see it?  A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it.  She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did.  He  literally called the cops on her because of a coupon.  He is on video too.  He got fired.
> 
> There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think.  And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation.  Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?
> 
> And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.  NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED.  Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service.  If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.
> 
> CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video
> 
> Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.
> 
> Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool
> 
> White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.
> 
> Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm
> 
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)."  How does that make sense?  Are blacks racist?  Is that why they do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, WTF does murder have to do with an OLD Black woman with a coupon for depends, a guy wearing socks in a pool, and a young black girl sleeping on a couch at YALE have to do with worrying about being murdered?
Click to expand...


Nothing, I never said it did.   Actually, you brought this up in our discussion about murder, not me.

Fact:  Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks

LewDemocrat:  OMG, whites have a race issue

That's what makes no sense


----------



## G.T.

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent. 

Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family


you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
Click to expand...


This kind of thing is why in many states that have CCW, still have laws where you can't wear the gun into an establishment that serves alcohol.  If you got guys like this idiot that can't be responsible with his gun in a situation like this, could you imagine how many people would get killed if you had a bunch of CCW people getting drunk off their ass?


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no room for conjecture in a debate whose outcome has such serious ramifications. Sorry bro. You know I love ya. But you’re straying far from the facts presented in the video, and falling back on emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Im basing the determination on logic. Theres testimony that the man previously threatened to SHOOT someone over the parking spot, and theres a man who ran into the store to GET HELP, and theres a man who got shot on video walking backwards after pushing someone away from his family.
> 
> Any responsible gun owner should be appalled at this guy's blood lust, threats and provocations.
Click to expand...

I can only assess the evidence before me. Not hearsay of people on the news, who didn’t even witness the event. The assailant blind sides the victim, which results in his own death, fractions of a second later. I’m not endorsing the victims self proclaimed status as a meter maid; but in the video he is clearly the first person who is legally victimized. And he clearly acted again this aggressor. 
I personally find fault with all parties involved. But only one escalated it to the point of violence. And it cost him his life.


----------



## kaz

G.T. said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
Click to expand...


Bam!  Perfectly stated


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kind of thing is why in many states that have CCW, still have laws where you can't wear the gun into an establishment that serves alcohol.  If you got guys like this idiot that can't be responsible with his gun in a situation like this, could you imagine how many people would get killed if you had a bunch of CCW people getting drunk off their ass?
Click to expand...


Typical Democrat argument, argue from theory, ignore reality.

In reality, the psycho WOULD carry the gun in the bar while everyone else would obey the law and be unarmed to defend themselves.

This happens over and over and yet you have a complete inability to learn from reality


----------



## G.T.

kaz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
Click to expand...

Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.


----------



## kaz

G.T. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
Click to expand...


Well, notice that the majority of second amendment supporters are not on the side of the shooter.

But yes, that this many people would argue that yelling at a woman over where she parked while packing is not an unreasonably dangerous situation to create is a bit scary


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... you didn't see it?  A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it.  She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did.  He  literally called the cops on her because of a coupon.  He is on video too.  He got fired.
> 
> There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think.  And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation.  Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?
> 
> And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.  NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED.  Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service.  If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.
> 
> CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video
> 
> Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.
> 
> Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool
> 
> White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.
> 
> Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm
> 
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)."  How does that make sense?  Are blacks racist?  Is that why they do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, WTF does murder have to do with an OLD Black woman with a coupon for depends, a guy wearing socks in a pool, and a young black girl sleeping on a couch at YALE have to do with worrying about being murdered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing, I never said it did.   Actually, you brought this up in our discussion about murder, not me.
> 
> Fact:  Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks
> 
> LewDemocrat:  OMG, whites have a race issue
> 
> That's what makes no sense
Click to expand...


No I didn't.  I said people like this guy have been over-reacting because of race a lot in all kinds of situations.  

Fact, Blacks kill more Blacks than Blacks kill Whites.  Now another thing, and this is the last I'll say, the percentage of Whites killed by Blacks, compared to Blacks killed by Whites, isn't that big of a gap, and to be quite honest, it could very easily be made up by the fact that a lot of Black deaths go unsolved because the cops don't care to put as much resources towards finding the killer unless they are someone of importance.  

Now that's a fact.  The less money you make, if you are a minority, and if you live in an urban area, the less police resources that will be used to solve your murder.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
Click to expand...


  Big difference between yelling and assault.
And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
  From the chick on down to the shooter.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, notice that the majority of second amendment supporters are not on the side of the shooter.
> 
> But yes, that this many people would argue that yelling at a woman over where she parked while packing is not an unreasonably dangerous situation to create is a bit scary
Click to expand...

I haven’t heard a single poster endorse the confrontation of the woman, who parked in the handicapped spot.


----------



## G.T.

kaz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, notice that the majority of second amendment supporters are not on the side of the shooter.
> 
> But yes, that this many people would argue that yelling at a woman over where she parked while packing is not an unreasonably dangerous situation to create is a bit scary
Click to expand...

And testimony of his previous encounters and the threat he made to shoot someone already in the past should clue some folks in that he was looking this to happen


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> 
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kind of thing is why in many states that have CCW, still have laws where you can't wear the gun into an establishment that serves alcohol.  If you got guys like this idiot that can't be responsible with his gun in a situation like this, could you imagine how many people would get killed if you had a bunch of CCW people getting drunk off their ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Democrat argument, argue from theory, ignore reality.
> 
> In reality, the psycho WOULD carry the gun in the bar while everyone else would obey the law and be unarmed to defend themselves.
> 
> This happens over and over and yet you have a complete inability to learn from reality
Click to expand...


Theory that is still being studied today is still being studied today because it is supported by reality.


----------



## Vastator

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
Click to expand...

I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
Click to expand...


WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?

One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
The guy who got shot committed assault
Shooting justfied


----------



## Lewdog

Vastator said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
Click to expand...


So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even clear what you're arguing.  Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?
> 
> And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.  NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED.  Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service.  If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.
> 
> CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video
> 
> Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.
> 
> Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool
> 
> White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.
> 
> Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm
> 
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)."  How does that make sense?  Are blacks racist?  Is that why they do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, WTF does murder have to do with an OLD Black woman with a coupon for depends, a guy wearing socks in a pool, and a young black girl sleeping on a couch at YALE have to do with worrying about being murdered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing, I never said it did.   Actually, you brought this up in our discussion about murder, not me.
> 
> Fact:  Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks
> 
> LewDemocrat:  OMG, whites have a race issue
> 
> That's what makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I said people like this guy have been over-reacting because of race a lot in all kinds of situations.
> 
> Fact, Blacks kill more Blacks than Blacks kill Whites.  Now another thing, and this is the last I'll say, the percentage of Whites killed by Blacks, compared to Blacks killed by Whites, isn't that big of a gap, and to be quite honest, it could very easily be made up by the fact that a lot of Black deaths go unsolved because the cops don't care to put as much resources towards finding the killer unless they are someone of importance.
> 
> Now that's a fact.  The less money you make, if you are a minority, and if you live in an urban area, the less police resources that will be used to solve your murder.
Click to expand...


Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?

You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah that's what usually happens in a fight right?  When you knock someone on the ground and gain an advantage, you back up to allow them to get up?  GTFO....
Click to expand...


Yeah when the guy is getting up you kick him in the face.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
Click to expand...


  I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
Click to expand...



It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah that's what usually happens in a fight right?  When you knock someone on the ground and gain an advantage, you back up to allow them to get up?  GTFO....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah when the guy is getting up you kick him in the face.
Click to expand...


While you are backing up from 8-10 feet away?  Now you're just bullshitting.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
Click to expand...


If he was just yelling?

I would have ignored him

If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
Click to expand...


Big difference between pushing someone who's screaming at your woman and shooting the guy who pushed you


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah that's what usually happens in a fight right?  When you knock someone on the ground and gain an advantage, you back up to allow them to get up?  GTFO....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah when the guy is getting up you kick him in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you are backing up from 8-10 feet away?  Now you're just bullshitting.
Click to expand...


That guy was not 10 feet away from the guy on the ground


----------



## miketx

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
Click to expand...

I didn't see any gun until the thug pushed him to the ground.


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
Click to expand...

The assailant shows no prior knowledge of the victim being armed. In fact no weapon is shown in the video prior to the assault.


----------



## G.T.

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
Click to expand...

im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs

the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
Click to expand...


Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.

The guy yelling committed no crime

The guy assaulting did


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.  NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED.  Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service.  If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.
> 
> CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video
> 
> Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.
> 
> Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool
> 
> White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.
> 
> Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm
> 
> These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered.  It's simply cases where people over-reacted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)."  How does that make sense?  Are blacks racist?  Is that why they do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, WTF does murder have to do with an OLD Black woman with a coupon for depends, a guy wearing socks in a pool, and a young black girl sleeping on a couch at YALE have to do with worrying about being murdered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing, I never said it did.   Actually, you brought this up in our discussion about murder, not me.
> 
> Fact:  Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks
> 
> LewDemocrat:  OMG, whites have a race issue
> 
> That's what makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I said people like this guy have been over-reacting because of race a lot in all kinds of situations.
> 
> Fact, Blacks kill more Blacks than Blacks kill Whites.  Now another thing, and this is the last I'll say, the percentage of Whites killed by Blacks, compared to Blacks killed by Whites, isn't that big of a gap, and to be quite honest, it could very easily be made up by the fact that a lot of Black deaths go unsolved because the cops don't care to put as much resources towards finding the killer unless they are someone of importance.
> 
> Now that's a fact.  The less money you make, if you are a minority, and if you live in an urban area, the less police resources that will be used to solve your murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?
> 
> You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...
Click to expand...


Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
Click to expand...



that is the beauty of concealed carry


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kind of thing is why in many states that have CCW, still have laws where you can't wear the gun into an establishment that serves alcohol.  If you got guys like this idiot that can't be responsible with his gun in a situation like this, could you imagine how many people would get killed if you had a bunch of CCW people getting drunk off their ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Democrat argument, argue from theory, ignore reality.
> 
> In reality, the psycho WOULD carry the gun in the bar while everyone else would obey the law and be unarmed to defend themselves.
> 
> This happens over and over and yet you have a complete inability to learn from reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory that is still being studied today is still being studied today because it is supported by reality.
Click to expand...


Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings.  Got it.  Thanks for pointing that out


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
Click to expand...

assault has nothing to do with injury

if you touch a person it can be called assault


----------



## miketx

G.T. said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is. You people haven't a clue about real life threats and attacks and use of force.


----------



## jon_berzerk

miketx said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see any gun until the thug pushed him to the ground.
Click to expand...



exactly


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between pushing someone who's screaming at your woman and shooting the guy who pushed you
Click to expand...


   Speech is not assault.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.
Click to expand...


Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
Click to expand...


I don't yell at anyone

but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is


----------



## Manonthestreet

ANTIFA: F*k the Police! Later: Police, Help Us!
So many instances of justifiable homicide......why isn't the right taking advantage...…
according to some idiots here


----------



## G.T.

miketx said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it is. You people haven't a clue about real life threats and attacks and use of force.
Click to expand...

damn man i shoulda been charged with so many assaults as a bouncer the cops seemed pretty friendly about it though..pushing people apart was somehow considered a DE escalation


----------



## Vastator

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
Click to expand...

Or even take a swing. If I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kind of thing is why in many states that have CCW, still have laws where you can't wear the gun into an establishment that serves alcohol.  If you got guys like this idiot that can't be responsible with his gun in a situation like this, could you imagine how many people would get killed if you had a bunch of CCW people getting drunk off their ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Democrat argument, argue from theory, ignore reality.
> 
> In reality, the psycho WOULD carry the gun in the bar while everyone else would obey the law and be unarmed to defend themselves.
> 
> This happens over and over and yet you have a complete inability to learn from reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory that is still being studied today is still being studied today because it is supported by reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings.  Got it.  Thanks for pointing that out
Click to expand...


Disarming honest citizens?  That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either fuck up or don't.  You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
Click to expand...

im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?
Click to expand...


Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt

and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drug arrest in 2008, I read in that new article quoted above. Charges were dropped. And that's it for him: the Drejka character got into more trouble than the black guy. Okay, no Saint McGlockton carry-on because that's how we got into so much confusion with the Trayvon Martin case. He was presented by the lying media as a saint, but wow, he was just a thug, turned out. I just feel bad because it's so sad about the mom and the three little kids. And he was defending them! Darn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But he was such a nice boy......
> 
> #1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC
> *STATUTE: *784.045(1)(B)/F
> 
> 
> #2 RESISTING ARREST W/VIOLENCE
> *STATUTE: *843.01/F
> 
> *BOND: *$2500
> 
> 
> #3 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
> *STATUTE: *877.03/M
Click to expand...

All the more reason why you don't go yelling at his wife or girlfriend for who you wouldn't know was married to a bad ace right ?? The guy who initiated the whole incident is the one responsible for the outcomes of the incident. Now it just has to be determined as to whether or not he is guilty of murder or manslaughter in which he caused.


----------



## OODA_Loop

I want to know caliber and round type.

My bet is .380 FMJ


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drug arrest in 2008, I read in that new article quoted above. Charges were dropped. And that's it for him: the Drejka character got into more trouble than the black guy. Okay, no Saint McGlockton carry-on because that's how we got into so much confusion with the Trayvon Martin case. He was presented by the lying media as a saint, but wow, he was just a thug, turned out. I just feel bad because it's so sad about the mom and the three little kids. And he was defending them! Darn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But he was such a nice boy......
> 
> #1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC
> *STATUTE: *784.045(1)(B)/F
> 
> 
> #2 RESISTING ARREST W/VIOLENCE
> *STATUTE: *843.01/F
> 
> *BOND: *$2500
> 
> 
> #3 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
> *STATUTE: *877.03/M
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the more reason why you don't go yelling at his wife or girlfriend for who you wouldn't know was married to a bad ace right ?? The guy who initiated the whole incident is the one responsible for the outcomes of the incident. Now it just has to be determined as to whether or not he is guilty of murder or manslaughter in which he caused.
Click to expand...


   The moral of the story....dont park in handicap zones if you're able bodied.
  It might set off a crazy dude.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> All the more reason why you don't go yelling at his wife or girlfriend for who you wouldn't know was married to a bad ace right ?? The guy who initiated the whole incident is the one responsible for the outcomes of the incident. Now it just has to be determined as to whether or not he is guilty of murder or manslaughter in which he caused.




Wrong guy.  Mr. Hands On escalated.   No crime until that point.


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
Click to expand...

I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
I don't care that people who assault others get dead


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
Click to expand...

But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.


----------



## OODA_Loop

HereWeGoAgain said:


> The moral of the story....dont park in handicap zones if you're able bodied.
> It might set off a crazy dude.




Dont let aggressors close the gap.

See Tueller Drill.

Tueller Drill - Wikipedia


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
Click to expand...


  Agreed.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vastator said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, notice that the majority of second amendment supporters are not on the side of the shooter.
> 
> But yes, that this many people would argue that yelling at a woman over where she parked while packing is not an unreasonably dangerous situation to create is a bit scary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven’t heard a single poster endorse the confrontation of the woman, who parked in the handicapped spot.
Click to expand...


it wasn't a crime so it doesn't matter


----------



## miketx

G.T. said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it is. You people haven't a clue about real life threats and attacks and use of force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> damn man i shoulda been charged with so many assaults as a bouncer the cops seemed pretty friendly about it though..pushing people apart was somehow considered a DE escalation
Click to expand...

No one was pushed apart in this topic, liar.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will cure cancer now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drug arrest in 2008, I read in that new article quoted above. Charges were dropped. And that's it for him: the Drejka character got into more trouble than the black guy. Okay, no Saint McGlockton carry-on because that's how we got into so much confusion with the Trayvon Martin case. He was presented by the lying media as a saint, but wow, he was just a thug, turned out. I just feel bad because it's so sad about the mom and the three little kids. And he was defending them! Darn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But he was such a nice boy......
> 
> #1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC
> *STATUTE: *784.045(1)(B)/F
> 
> 
> #2 RESISTING ARREST W/VIOLENCE
> *STATUTE: *843.01/F
> 
> *BOND: *$2500
> 
> 
> #3 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
> *STATUTE: *877.03/M
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the more reason why you don't go yelling at his wife or girlfriend for who you wouldn't know was married to a bad ace right ?? The guy who initiated the whole incident is the one responsible for the outcomes of the incident. Now it just has to be determined as to whether or not he is guilty of murder or manslaughter in which he caused.
Click to expand...

Using your logic; the woman, is responsible for killing the assailant.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
Click to expand...



It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?

I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
Click to expand...


The guy standing there had not committed any crime

The guy who assaulted him did

And the 8th amendment applies to the government not the individual


----------



## miketx

Manonthestreet said:


> ANTIFA: F*k the Police! Later: Police, Help Us!
> So many instances of justifiable homicide......why isn't the right taking advantage...…
> according to some idiots here


Smoke spin and lie, the mainstay of liberals.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> 
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
Click to expand...

we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself

hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
Click to expand...


Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming

That doesn't make it legal

If some guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass would you fear for your safety?


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
Click to expand...



Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again
Click to expand...

Highly speculative your honor, I wish the record be stricken of skullpilots assertions here. Sustained.


----------



## miketx

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> 
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
Click to expand...

NO troll, he shot the criminal after being violently attacked. No matter how many times you lie otherwise, that's what happened.


----------



## G.T.

miketx said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
> 
> 
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO troll, he shot the criminal after being violently attacked. No matter how many times you lie otherwise, that's what happened.
Click to expand...

cool story michael


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
Click to expand...


The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
Click to expand...

So you are saying that emotional basket cases are being legally allowed to conceal and carry ??


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.



For words?  Come on  Your being silly or intellectually devoid.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy standing there had not committed any crime
> 
> The guy who assaulted him did
> 
> And the 8th amendment applies to the government not the individual
Click to expand...


He hadn't committed a crime "yet."  He was being aggressive by yelling at the woman in the car with the KIDS.  

Really odd that a man is yelling at a woman with kids in the car... but you guys don't give a rat's ass about that.  Where the woman and kids are more vulnerable, but you act like the man that got pushed down is some defenseless child and was attacked by this crazed 500 pound bodybuilder.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
Click to expand...


The constitution has nothing to do with it

The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im not even sure pushing someone away from someone is even considered assault if no injury occurs
> 
> the judge would be really pissed off with that case, imagine
> 
> 
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
Click to expand...

If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retreat does not indicate the attack is over.  Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.
> 
> It is why it is good not attack others.   You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly speculative your honor, I wish the record be stricken of skullpilots assertions here. Sustained.
Click to expand...


Like I give a flying or any other kind of fuck what you think


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> So you are saying that emotional basket cases are being legally allowed to conceal and carry ??


 
Unless adjudicated incompetent or a threat.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
Click to expand...


Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy standing there had not committed any crime
> 
> The guy who assaulted him did
> 
> And the 8th amendment applies to the government not the individual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He hadn't committed a crime "yet."  He was being aggressive by yelling at the woman in the car with the KIDS.
> 
> Really odd that a man is yelling at a woman with kids in the car... but you guys don't give a rat's ass about that.  Where the woman and kids are more vulnerable, but you act like the man that got pushed down is some defenseless child and was attacked by this crazed 500 pound bodybuilder.
Click to expand...


They were safely locked in the car

If the guy had tried to get into the car that would be a different story

Yelling at people is not a crime


----------



## Manonthestreet

miketx said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANTIFA: F*k the Police! Later: Police, Help Us!
> So many instances of justifiable homicide......why isn't the right taking advantage...…
> according to some idiots here
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke spin and lie, the mainstay of liberals.
Click to expand...

Except you should know by now I'm not a lib...…..


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> assault has nothing to do with injury
> 
> if you touch a person it can be called assault
> 
> 
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
Click to expand...

its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> 
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
Click to expand...


Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For words?  Come on  Your being silly or intellectually devoid.
Click to expand...

The push down was enough, but no deadly force was nessesary in either of the incidents taking place.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> He hadn't committed a crime "yet."  He was being aggressive by yelling at the woman in the car with the KIDS.
> 
> Really odd that a man is yelling at a woman with kids in the car... but you guys don't give a rat's ass about that.  Where the woman and kids are more vulnerable, but you act like the man that got pushed down is some defenseless child and was attacked by this crazed 500 pound bodybuilder.



Safer in the car than out....too much threat ?  Back out ?  Call the law ?


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> The push down was enough, but no deadly force was nessesary in either of the incidents taking place.



Lost me ?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy standing there had not committed any crime
> 
> The guy who assaulted him did
> 
> And the 8th amendment applies to the government not the individual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He hadn't committed a crime "yet."  He was being aggressive by yelling at the woman in the car with the KIDS.
> 
> Really odd that a man is yelling at a woman with kids in the car... but you guys don't give a rat's ass about that.  Where the woman and kids are more vulnerable, but you act like the man that got pushed down is some defenseless child and was attacked by this crazed 500 pound bodybuilder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were safely locked in the car
> 
> If the guy had tried to get into the car that would be a different story
> 
> Yelling at people is not a crime
Click to expand...

why were they locked in the car...was it because the dude was a threat......nnoooooo……..


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
Click to expand...


Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.


----------



## G.T.

OODA_Loop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For words?  Come on  Your being silly or intellectually devoid.
Click to expand...

misquote...that wasnt me


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or even take a swing. I I dodge an attempted blow to the head; am I leagally bound to not strike back because they didn’t actually manage to land the blow? I think not...
> 
> 
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.


----------



## Lewdog

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
Click to expand...


He wasn't standing over him.  He was like 7-10 feet away and backing up.  Now you are making shit up.


----------



## cwise76

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect in this instance and a jury will agree.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

U2Edge said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
Click to expand...

*It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*


----------



## beagle9

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy standing there had not committed any crime
> 
> The guy who assaulted him did
> 
> And the 8th amendment applies to the government not the individual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He hadn't committed a crime "yet."  He was being aggressive by yelling at the woman in the car with the KIDS.
> 
> Really odd that a man is yelling at a woman with kids in the car... but you guys don't give a rat's ass about that.  Where the woman and kids are more vulnerable, but you act like the man that got pushed down is some defenseless child and was attacked by this crazed 500 pound bodybuilder.
Click to expand...

What this means in my opinion, is that in these situations it could begin some sort of wave effect that could be used by political hacks with an agenda (unrelated to truth and justice in a case) to be empowered to fuel the anti-gun agenda. It's not that anyone doesn't care about women and children being yelled at or what ever the case might be because they do care. What is being defended is the freedom from the entire system being grouped into a narrative that threatens the rights of the good citizens to having those rights stripped all due to one case being used to do such a thing.


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> 
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't standing over him.  He was like 7-10 feet away and backing up.  Now you are making shit up.
Click to expand...

If a six foot man, with an adittional 3 foot of reach is 7 feet from you; can he be he a threat? Of course he can.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im just using personal opinion when talking about a shove, here....not being johnny cochran
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
Click to expand...

A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..

I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.
> 
> As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
Click to expand...

Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.

And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.


----------



## Vastator

cwise76 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> 
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are incorrect in this instance and a jury will agree.
Click to expand...

I would caution against preditcing the future.


----------



## Vastator

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.
> 
> And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.
Click to expand...

The assailant was never spoken to prior to his commission of assault.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> 
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
Click to expand...


I am arguing no such thing

A civilian has no authority to pass either bail or sentences for crimes therefore the 8th amendment does not apply

He shot in self defense the law states that he now has to justify that shooting or be convicted of a crime


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a savage.
> I would have simply got back in the car and left.
> Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.
> 
> And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.
Click to expand...


  You have no idea what the guy was saying.
Battery,what the black guy did is assault


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
Click to expand...


You think he wasn't

He might have thought something completely different after being blindsided by a much larger man


----------



## beagle9

Dan Stubbs said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
Click to expand...

True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> 
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
Click to expand...

None of us can know “what”, visually speaking the victim could see, nor with what level of detail after being assaulted.. To wait the seconds for one could need for your vision to clear; is more than enough time for an assailant to end your life.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of us can know “what”, visually speaking the victim could see with what level of detail after being assaulted.. To wait the seconds for one could need for your vision to clear; is more than enough time for an assailant to end your life.
Click to expand...

If you shoot first ask questions later after being pushed down, you need a shrink and not a gun.


----------



## cwise76

The video


Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of us can know “what”, visually speaking the victim could see with what level of detail after his assault. To wait the seconds for one could need for your vision to clear; is more than enough time for an assailant to end your life.
Click to expand...

Ok then shoot him in the leg. Looked like murder to me.


----------



## beagle9

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> 
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
Click to expand...

The way the little agravator folded up on the pavement when he hit the pavement, I can understand his emotional state when he exacted vengence by way of his gun that was bigger than he was in the situation.  Doesn't make him right to do what he did, but you can see why he did it in his case.

Might explain why he chose the women and children instead of the dad when he started his crap.

He didn't need no permit or weapon if a handicap parking spot drove him crazy like that.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
Click to expand...

I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> 
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of us can know “what”, visually speaking the victim could see with what level of detail after being assaulted.. To wait the seconds for one could need for your vision to clear; is more than enough time for an assailant to end your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you shoot first ask questions later after being pushed down, you need a shrink and not a gun.
Click to expand...

Better than a coroner. No?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
Click to expand...

In some states, yes – in Florida, not.


----------



## Lewdog

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if this goes to court... two sides will be playing Johnny Cochran. And reasonable doubt is all that’s necessary for a “not guilty” verdict. It’s seems that there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. That’s probably why formal charges haven’t been filed.
> 
> 
> 
> we will see, personally i secretly not so secretly hope that if the law doesnt get him, a crazed vigilante does because in my mind he doesnt at all value human life, while carrying a deadly weapon and i dont want those types out there in numbers as i raise kiddoes, myself
> 
> hes a sick ticket..obsessed and threatening to shoot folks over a fakkin parking spot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s your way of saying he was the initial douchebag in the story; I agree. But that doesn’t make him fair game for assault. There’s lots of douchebags out there. And we can’t all deliver street justice based on our own opinions of another persons character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
Click to expand...


These professed Second Amendment supporters do not even realize their arguments in this thread are hurting their campaign 10 times more than it is helping it.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> its based on his judgment of when to use deadly force and his track record of provoking situations.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of us can know “what”, visually speaking the victim could see with what level of detail after being assaulted.. To wait the seconds for one could need for your vision to clear; is more than enough time for an assailant to end your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you shoot first ask questions later after being pushed down, you need a shrink and not a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than a coroner. No?
Click to expand...

Thats where I'm hoping he ends up. The less of these psychotics around the better. I'll take 500, 000 men who push someone away from their wife and kids than a single emotional basketcase who gets his little manballs by way of a pistol permit and then goes out looking for trouble


----------



## cwise76

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
Click to expand...

Sorry man it just doesn’t add up: You  can’t just kill people like that.


----------



## Lewdog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
Click to expand...


Even Florida Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, and there was no video of the actual confrontation so it was Zimmerman's word against that of a dead guy and a girl that was just on the cell phone.  This whole confrontation was caught on video.  This guy is fucking toast.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
Click to expand...

Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

HereWeGoAgain said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.
> 
> And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what the guy was saying.
> Battery,what the black guy did is assault
Click to expand...

You have no idea what the law is: there is no difference between yelling and assault – ‘big’ or otherwise.

Yelling can be perceived as a threat, justifying the use of deadly force as self-defense; physical contact (battery) is not required to justify the use of deadly force in Florida.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am arguing no such thing
> 
> A civilian has no authority to pass either bail or sentences for crimes therefore the 8th amendment does not apply
> 
> He shot in self defense the law states that he now has to justify that shooting or be convicted of a crime
Click to expand...


YOU have stated YOU think that someone who simply pushes someone to the ground DESERVES to be shot to death.  So YOU either believe in the principle the 8th Amendment is based on, against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, or YOU don't think everyone deserves equal rights... or you think we should just be the wild west where you can just shoot and kill whoever you want even if you don't feel your life is really at risk.  I'm just going by what YOU have said.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lewdog said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Florida Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, and there was no video of the actual confrontation so it was Zimmerman's word against that of a dead guy and a girl that was just on the cell phone.  This whole confrontation was caught on video.  This guy is fucking toast.
Click to expand...

And the Zimmerman debacle is why the shooter in this case won’t become ‘toast.’


----------



## cwise76

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
Click to expand...

Come to Florida for the sun the beaches and if you’re luc


beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
Click to expand...

Thats already been established. Fucking guy was looking to kill someone. Now it’s time for him to go to prison. May justice prevail


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> 
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of us can know “what”, visually speaking the victim could see with what level of detail after being assaulted.. To wait the seconds for one could need for your vision to clear; is more than enough time for an assailant to end your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you shoot first ask questions later after being pushed down, you need a shrink and not a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than a coroner. No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats where I'm hoping he ends up. The less of these psychotics around the better. I'll take 500, 000 men who push someone away from their wife and kids than a single emotional basketcase who gets his little manballs by way of a pistol permit and then goes out looking for trouble
Click to expand...

There was no wife in this story GT. You’re a better debater than to straw man, and argue from emotion. And youre usually level headed enough to recognize a crime when you see one. Douchbaggery is not a crime. And it is not grounds for assault without consequence. Legally, or otherwise.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And having been blindsided by an unknown party with enough force to take you off your feet, and then having them upright standing over you; while you are now completely defenseless save for your gun; sounds like the perfect reason to shoot in self defense. Remember... there is no prior conversation between the victim, and the assailant. He has no way of knowing his intent, or motivations.
> 
> 
> 
> A guy came into the store and told the father something, which caused him to head out there..
> 
> I would never shoot a person for pushing me down, ever, and dont appreciate anyone owning deadly weapons that feels the opposite....Thats fucking insanity as a threshold. Also doing so without second thought and without seeing a weapon on the guy that pushed you..if you dont have your WITS about you you dont need to be carrying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of us can know “what”, visually speaking the victim could see with what level of detail after being assaulted.. To wait the seconds for one could need for your vision to clear; is more than enough time for an assailant to end your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you shoot first ask questions later after being pushed down, you need a shrink and not a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than a coroner. No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats where I'm hoping he ends up. The less of these psychotics around the better. I'll take 500, 000 men who push someone away from their wife and kids than a single emotional basketcase who gets his little manballs by way of a pistol permit and then goes out looking for trouble
Click to expand...

He will. But then... Won’t we all?


----------



## Lewdog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Florida Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, and there was no video of the actual confrontation so it was Zimmerman's word against that of a dead guy and a girl that was just on the cell phone.  This whole confrontation was caught on video.  This guy is fucking toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Zimmerman debacle is why the shooter in this case won’t become ‘toast.’
Click to expand...


Why?  I just explained to you the most important difference.  Zimmerman's case was based on just Zimmerman's word.  This case is all caught on video.  They aren't even remotely the same case.


----------



## G.T.

Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.

Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.
> 
> And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what the guy was saying.
> Battery,what the black guy did is assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what the law is: there is no difference between yelling and assault – ‘big’ or otherwise.
> 
> Yelling can be perceived as a threat, justifying the use of deadly force as self-defense; physical contact (battery) is not required to justify the use of deadly force in Florida.
Click to expand...


   Yelling at someone is not assault.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the court and a jury decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
Click to expand...

It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.


----------



## Vastator

cwise76 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida for the sun the beaches and if you’re luc
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats already been established. Fucking guy was looking to kill someone. Now it’s time for him to go to prison. May justice prevail
Click to expand...

No it hasn’t. In fact; you’re statement is pure conjecture, and nothing more.


----------



## Lewdog

G.T. said:


> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/



Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/


What kind of distance could you achieve by backing up for five continuous seconds? Try it. Time yourself, and report back with your distance. The fact is the assailant stayed in “the bubble”. He just didn’t know his victim was armed...


----------



## G.T.

Lewdog said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
Click to expand...

Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of distance could you achieve by backing up for five continuous seconds? Try it. Time yourself, and report back with your distance. The fact is the assailant stayed in “the bubble”. He just didn’t know his victim was armed...
Click to expand...

Im not sure anyone who sees that video and feels the shooting is justified belongs owning a gun, and I am sure that the man who pulled the trigger belongs off the streets permanently.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
Click to expand...

It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
Click to expand...

We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lewdog said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Florida Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, and there was no video of the actual confrontation so it was Zimmerman's word against that of a dead guy and a girl that was just on the cell phone.  This whole confrontation was caught on video.  This guy is fucking toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Zimmerman debacle is why the shooter in this case won’t become ‘toast.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  I just explained to you the most important difference.  Zimmerman's case was based on just Zimmerman's word.  This case is all caught on video.  They aren't even remotely the same case.
Click to expand...

Of course they would be the same case – Zimmerman was charged with murder, and so would the shooter in the OP be charged with murder.

And the shooter in the OP would be likewise acquitted – which is why the State won’t charge him; the State doesn’t want the embarrassment of another failed prosecution as with the Zimmerman case, and the subsequent bad PR.

Moreover, the video in the OP clearly shows that the shooting was lawful, which is why the shooter wasn't charged at the scene and taken into custody.  

Some might not agree with the law or think that the law is ‘wrong’, ‘bad,’ or ‘immoral’ – but it’s the law nonetheless.


----------



## cwise76

G.T. said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
Click to expand...

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve watched the video half a dozen times and the lasting impression is cold blooded murder. I’m not sure why it i such a stretch for some to see this.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of distance could you achieve by backing up for five continuous seconds? Try it. Time yourself, and report back with your distance. The fact is the assailant stayed in “the bubble”. He just didn’t know his victim was armed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure anyone who sees that video and feels the shooting is justified belongs owning a gun, and I am sure that the man who pulled the trigger belongs off the streets permanently.
Click to expand...

“Not being sure” is what is called reasonable doubt, in a court of law. And reasonable doubt is all that’s required to render a not guilty verdict. It’s a shitty case no doubt. But the man being assaulted first, makes this case a loser to bring to trial. The local DAs likely have more pressing; and less ambiguous cases to bring before the court.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

cwise76 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida for the sun the beaches and if you’re luc
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats already been established. Fucking guy was looking to kill someone. Now it’s time for him to go to prison. May justice prevail
Click to expand...

Come to Florida and don’t threaten or attack people and you’ll be fine.


----------



## cwise76

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of distance could you achieve by backing up for five continuous seconds? Try it. Time yourself, and report back with your distance. The fact is the assailant stayed in “the bubble”. He just didn’t know his victim was armed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure anyone who sees that video and feels the shooting is justified belongs owning a gun, and I am sure that the man who pulled the trigger belongs off the streets permanently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Not being sure” is what is called reasonable doubt, in a court of law. And reasonable doubt is all that’s required to render a not guilty verdict. It’s a shitty case no doubt. But the man being assaulted first, makes this case a loser to bring to trial. The local DAs likely have more pressing; and less ambiguous cases to bring before the court.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm that seems highly unlikely


----------



## Lewdog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> 
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even Florida Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, and there was no video of the actual confrontation so it was Zimmerman's word against that of a dead guy and a girl that was just on the cell phone.  This whole confrontation was caught on video.  This guy is fucking toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Zimmerman debacle is why the shooter in this case won’t become ‘toast.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  I just explained to you the most important difference.  Zimmerman's case was based on just Zimmerman's word.  This case is all caught on video.  They aren't even remotely the same case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they would be the same case – Zimmerman was charged with murder, and so would the shooter in the OP be charged with murder.
> 
> And the shooter in the OP would be likewise acquitted – which is why the State won’t charge him; the State doesn’t want the embarrassment of another failed prosecution as with the Zimmerman case, and the subsequent bad PR.
> 
> Moreover, the video in the OP clearly shows that the shooting was lawful, which is why the shooter wasn't charged at the scene and taken into custody.
> 
> Some might not agree with the law or think that the law is ‘wrong’, ‘bad,’ or ‘immoral’ – but it’s the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...


It's not the same case.... because Zimmerman said he fear for his life because Martin was on top of him slamming his head into the concrete and then reaching for his gun.  IF that's true, which we will never know for sure because Martin is dead, and there were no witnesses or video, THAT'S why he was acquitted based on the law.  

This was ALL on video.  When the killing shot was fired, the shooter was NOT in imminent danger as the unarmed victim was a good 7-10 feet away and backing up.  They aren't the same case.  They are using the same defense, but the evidence is not the same.

I'm really not sure what you are seeing and thinking.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
Click to expand...

Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...


----------



## cwise76

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida for the sun the beaches and if you’re luc
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats already been established. Fucking guy was looking to kill someone. Now it’s time for him to go to prison. May justice prevail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida and don’t threaten or attack people and you’ll be fine.
Click to expand...

What about defending your girlfriend


----------



## SavannahMann

No. It was not. Not even close.


----------



## Vastator

cwise76 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of distance could you achieve by backing up for five continuous seconds? Try it. Time yourself, and report back with your distance. The fact is the assailant stayed in “the bubble”. He just didn’t know his victim was armed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure anyone who sees that video and feels the shooting is justified belongs owning a gun, and I am sure that the man who pulled the trigger belongs off the streets permanently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Not being sure” is what is called reasonable doubt, in a court of law. And reasonable doubt is all that’s required to render a not guilty verdict. It’s a shitty case no doubt. But the man being assaulted first, makes this case a loser to bring to trial. The local DAs likely have more pressing; and less ambiguous cases to bring before the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmmm that seems highly unlikely
Click to expand...

Current reality defies your estimation of likelihood...


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
Click to expand...

If Im on my back and clear enough to go down into my waist, unsafety my piece, point and aim at a guy backing away..... and then pulling the trigger, I dont belong on the streets.


----------



## cwise76

Vastator said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of distance could you achieve by backing up for five continuous seconds? Try it. Time yourself, and report back with your distance. The fact is the assailant stayed in “the bubble”. He just didn’t know his victim was armed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not sure anyone who sees that video and feels the shooting is justified belongs owning a gun, and I am sure that the man who pulled the trigger belongs off the streets permanently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Not being sure” is what is called reasonable doubt, in a court of law. And reasonable doubt is all that’s required to render a not guilty verdict. It’s a shitty case no doubt. But the man being assaulted first, makes this case a loser to bring to trial. The local DAs likely have more pressing; and less ambiguous cases to bring before the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmmm that seems highly unlikely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current reality defies your estimation of likelihood...
Click to expand...

I guess we’ll see. I for one hope he gets put in prison where he belongs. 

You can’t just kill people like that man. Sorry but it just isn’t right. End of story


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Im on my back and clear enough to go down into my waist, unsafety my piece, point and aim at a guy backing away..... and then pulling the trigger, I dont belong on the streets.
Click to expand...

You just described countless individuals who have trained themselves to use their firearms in self defense...


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Im on my back and clear enough to go down into my waist, unsafety my piece, point and aim at a guy backing away..... and then pulling the trigger, I dont belong on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just described everyone who has trained themselves to use their firearms in self defense...
Click to expand...

Its too bad theyre not trained in the level of severity it should take one to decide to end a life, and because of such poor judgment I hope he rots for eternity.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> 
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Im on my back and clear enough to go down into my waist, unsafety my piece, point and aim at a guy backing away..... and then pulling the trigger, I dont belong on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just described everyone who has trained themselves to use their firearms in self defense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its too bad theyre not trained in the level of severity it should take one to decide to end a life, and because of such poor judgment I hope he rots for eternity.
Click to expand...

While I don’t think his actions rise to the level of legal wrong doing... I’ve always put more faith in Karma than the institutions of men.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

G.T. said:


> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/


‘Backing up’ doesn’t mean the threat has ended, or that the person being attacked is ‘obligated’ to believe the threat no longer exists – the person attacked may continue to reasonably believe that the threat still exists. 

Had the individual who pushed the shooter to the ground turned and ran from the incident, at that point shooting would likely not be justified. 

Florida law maintains a very low standard as to what justifies self-defense, even a “scintilla” of evidence will satisfy that standard, regardless how improbable or extremely weak the self-defense theory might be.

And yet again, Florida law doesn’t require physical contact to warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

cwise76 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of distance could you achieve by backing up for five continuous seconds? Try it. Time yourself, and report back with your distance. The fact is the assailant stayed in “the bubble”. He just didn’t know his victim was armed...
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure anyone who sees that video and feels the shooting is justified belongs owning a gun, and I am sure that the man who pulled the trigger belongs off the streets permanently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Not being sure” is what is called reasonable doubt, in a court of law. And reasonable doubt is all that’s required to render a not guilty verdict. It’s a shitty case no doubt. But the man being assaulted first, makes this case a loser to bring to trial. The local DAs likely have more pressing; and less ambiguous cases to bring before the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmmm that seems highly unlikely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current reality defies your estimation of likelihood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess we’ll see. I for one hope he gets put in prison where he belongs.
> 
> You can’t just kill people like that man. Sorry but it just isn’t right. End of story
Click to expand...

It might not be ‘right’ from a moral or ethical standpoint, which is subjective opinion; as an objective fact of law, however, the shooting was justified.


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about his fists, moron.  I mean duh.  How did you possibly not get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case did he place his hands on anyone ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
Click to expand...



He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......

The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.


----------



## 2aguy

Has anyone found the background on the attacker yet... normal people do now just walk up and push someone that hard in the course of an argument they aren't even being targeted by......that level of aggression, that quickly shows a guy used to being violent.  That wasn't his first physical assault against another person....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

cwise76 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida for the sun the beaches and if you’re luc
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats already been established. Fucking guy was looking to kill someone. Now it’s time for him to go to prison. May justice prevail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida and don’t threaten or attack people and you’ll be fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about defending your girlfriend
Click to expand...

Florida law with regard to the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense applies to defending friends and family members as well as the individual.


----------



## Circe

HereWeGoAgain said:


> The moral of the story....dont park in handicap zones if you're able bodied.
> It might set off a crazy dude.



Yeah, he got triggered.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Backing up’ doesn’t mean the threat has ended, or that the person being attacked is ‘obligated’ to believe the threat no longer exists – the person attacked may continue to reasonably believe that the threat still exists.
> 
> Had the individual who pushed the shooter to the ground turned and ran from the incident, at that point shooting would likely not be justified.
> 
> Florida law maintains a very low standard as to what justifies self-defense, even a “scintilla” of evidence will satisfy that standard, regardless how improbable or extremely weak the self-defense theory might be.
> 
> And yet again, Florida law doesn’t require physical contact to warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense.
Click to expand...



Yes..... Disparate Force is one of the measures...


----------



## Circe

beagle9 said:


> So you are saying that emotional basket cases are being legally allowed to conceal and carry ??



Plainly...……...


----------



## Circe

beagle9 said:


> [the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.



Which he was: we know for sure of two other such incidents and I bet a bunch of people come out and tell other tales of a guy looking desperately for someone to kill.  

What about that? It's a problem with the Florida law. It is clear this guy was hunting for fights, repeatedly at this unlucky convenience store and there was the road rage gun-pulling too. Is there some way to stop this with adjustment to the law, or what? We've seen this before: middle-aged or even elderly guys furiously looking for someone to fight and kill. This is getting close to that (Florida! What is it about Florida??) incident where Nikolas Cruz was reported and reported and reported but nobody ever stopped him till he killed a bunch of high school students. This guy also has a lot of red flags and that road rage case --- if he hadn't pulled a gun on the other driver, why would the driver have reported that to the police? It was one person's word against the crazy guy's categorical denial, but now we have every reason to suppose he dunnit. 

We watched Tombstone the other night. Alcohol and pride issues and general cussedness and grumpiness were why people shot each other --- it wasn't really about self-defense. I'd like the whole country not to go that way.


----------



## Vastator

Circe said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which he was: we know for sure of two other such incidents and I bet a bunch of people come out and tell other tales of a guy looking desperately for someone to kill.
> 
> What about that? It's a problem with the Florida law. It is clear this guy was hunting for fights, repeatedly at this unlucky convenience store and there was the road rage gun-pulling too. Is there some way to stop this with adjustment to the law, or what? We've seen this before: middle-aged or even elderly guys furiously looking for someone to fight and kill. This is getting close to that (Florida! What is it about Florida??) incident where Nikolas Cruz was reported and reported and reported but nobody ever stopped him till he killed a bunch of high school students. This guy also has a lot of red flags and that road rage case --- if he hadn't pulled a gun on the other driver, why would the driver have reported that to the police? It was one person's word against the crazy guy's categorical denial, but now we have every reason to suppose he dunnit.
> 
> We watched Tombstone the other night. Alcohol and pride issues and general cussedness and grumpiness were why people shot each other --- it wasn't really about self-defense. I'd like the whole country not to go that way.
Click to expand...

No. That isn’t clear, and again... is conjecture. Even if it were true; there is no way to prove it. The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.


----------



## Circe

Vastator said:


> The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.



The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.

That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.

I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.


----------



## jon_berzerk

wyatt wanted to keep firearms for his cronies 

while disarming those he disagreed with


----------



## Vastator

Circe said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.
> 
> That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.
> 
> I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.
Click to expand...

There is nothing indicated in the video to suggest that the victim was drunk. Furthermore, the assailants, nor the spectators estimation of the victims ability to defend himself is of little consequence. If the assailant thought he could get away with his attack, through his own ignorance... That’s on him, and him alone. It isn’t a victims job to educate an attacker about how able they are to defend themselves. Often times that’s considered nothing more than shit talking. The assailant showed his ass, and got his ticket punched. Too bad for Jonny would-be-badass. He made a fatal miscalculation.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Vastator said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.
> 
> That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.
> 
> I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing indicated in the video to suggest that the victim was drunk. Furthermore, the assailants, nor the spectators estimation of the victims ability to defend himself is of little consequence. If the assailant thought he could get away with his attack, through his own ignorance... That’s on him, and him alone. It isn’t a victims job to educate an attacker about how able they are to defend themselves. Often times that’s considered nothing more than shit talking. The assailant showed his ass, and got his ticket punched. Too bad for Jonny would-be-badass. He made a fatal miscalculation.
Click to expand...



thank God for Concealed Carry Laws


----------



## Circe

Okay, I see this thread just became a "never give them a thin entering wedge to grab guns," so now all the gun supporters have to make this horrible Michael Drejka into a hero. He's no hero; he's like a vampire hunting for blood.

I am a gun supporter myself, but this is an ugly story about a truly ugly guy doing a bad thing -- that's the shooter I'm talking about.

His provocation involved predatory terrorizing of a woman and her small children, and I sure know what I think about that. They always go after the women and children. I think that's pretty rotten.

I think the black father, Markeis McGlockton, had right on his side and that Michael Drejka, the shooter, was a predator out to kill. He'll get off on self-defense, IMO, but lemme tell you, no one is likely to convince me that this worthless no-good terrorizing a mom and her children and then killing the daddy is a GOOD guy or that anything about this situation is right. Gun rights or no gun rights, this is a bad story and I don't like it.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.
Click to expand...

No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.


Depends on the witnesses or store owners testimony unless you want to discard such testimony as was the case in Michael Browns case when he robbed the little Indian man in his store, so which is it ??


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> cwise76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger.  This guy wasn't.  You're a hack.  Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In some states, yes – in Florida, not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida for the sun the beaches and if you’re luc
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats already been established. Fucking guy was looking to kill someone. Now it’s time for him to go to prison. May justice prevail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come to Florida and don’t threaten or attack people and you’ll be fine.
Click to expand...

Unless you live in Florida, and then you get away with it ?


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the witnesses or store owners testimony unless you want to discard such testimony as was the case in Michael Browns case when he robbed the little Indian man in his store, so which is it ??
Click to expand...

I am sure the detectives spoke to them before deciding not to press charges.


----------



## beagle9

cwise76 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Couldn’t agree more. I’ve watched the video half a dozen times and the lasting impression is cold blooded murder. I’m not sure why it i such a stretch for some to see this.
Click to expand...

Not a case of cold blooded murder, and how you don't see that is really amazing. Projection much ?

Could be a case of temporary insanity due to emotional fuel based upon the push down, but he shouldn't have started it or he should have had better self control as a CCW holder.


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI

Vastator said:


> CHAZBUKOWSKI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> 
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure as shit does.  I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who would let possession a weapon influence their behavior, or demeanor; shouldn’t be carrying one in my opinion. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I prefer to conduct myself cordially whether I’m armed, or not. Because you never know if the person you are talking to is armed, or not. But that’s just me...
Click to expand...

Well we are equal if opposed in that regards.  I don’t think anybody who thinks carrying is not a responsibility with considerations shouldn’t be carrying


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the witnesses or store owners testimony unless you want to discard such testimony as was the case in Michael Browns case when he robbed the little Indian man in his store, so which is it ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure the detectives spoke to them before deciding not to press charges.
Click to expand...

Hopefully.


----------



## OODA_Loop

What you learn in Kindergarten can save your life.


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI

kaz said:


> CHAZBUKOWSKI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible.  You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting.  If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation.  I mean duh.  How do you not get that?
> 
> I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity.  Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights.  What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?
> 
> 
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure as shit does.  I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I can't believe any second amendment supporter wouldn't feel that way.
> 
> And in this case, the shooter did more than interject himself into a confrontation, he started it by yelling at the woman in the parking lot.
> 
> I always argue to leftists that they don't have actual standards because they only apply their standards to Republicans, never themselves.  A standard is something you apply to yourself first, or it's just an attack, not a standard.
> 
> That's why I won't back down from the argument that if you're carrying, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to avoid conflicts and you only produce the gun when you can't.  Screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot because you don't like where she parked isn't it
Click to expand...

His actions are so out of line with responsible gun carry I cannot outright dismiss the suggestion that he was itching for something like this.  Hope it wasn’t so, but if not, what was he thinking?


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
Click to expand...

Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor.  You never go from verbal to physical.*
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
Click to expand...

Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.
Click to expand...

There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.


----------



## beagle9

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground.  That is flat out murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Im on my back and clear enough to go down into my waist, unsafety my piece, point and aim at a guy backing away..... and then pulling the trigger, I dont belong on the streets.
Click to expand...

If done intentionally. Otherwise his motives were wrong when took the shot.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.
Click to expand...

Just like all the other projection here right ?? Good grief.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
Click to expand...

Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.
> 
> Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Backing up’ doesn’t mean the threat has ended, or that the person being attacked is ‘obligated’ to believe the threat no longer exists – the person attacked may continue to reasonably believe that the threat still exists.
> 
> Had the individual who pushed the shooter to the ground turned and ran from the incident, at that point shooting would likely not be justified.
> 
> Florida law maintains a very low standard as to what justifies self-defense, even a “scintilla” of evidence will satisfy that standard, regardless how improbable or extremely weak the self-defense theory might be.
> 
> And yet again, Florida law doesn’t require physical contact to warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense.
Click to expand...

To hell with living in Florida then... Must be the set up capital of the nation, where as if someone wants someone dead then down there in Florida you have the means to justify it.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which he was: we know for sure of two other such incidents and I bet a bunch of people come out and tell other tales of a guy looking desperately for someone to kill.
> 
> What about that? It's a problem with the Florida law. It is clear this guy was hunting for fights, repeatedly at this unlucky convenience store and there was the road rage gun-pulling too. Is there some way to stop this with adjustment to the law, or what? We've seen this before: middle-aged or even elderly guys furiously looking for someone to fight and kill. This is getting close to that (Florida! What is it about Florida??) incident where Nikolas Cruz was reported and reported and reported but nobody ever stopped him till he killed a bunch of high school students. This guy also has a lot of red flags and that road rage case --- if he hadn't pulled a gun on the other driver, why would the driver have reported that to the police? It was one person's word against the crazy guy's categorical denial, but now we have every reason to suppose he dunnit.
> 
> We watched Tombstone the other night. Alcohol and pride issues and general cussedness and grumpiness were why people shot each other --- it wasn't really about self-defense. I'd like the whole country not to go that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. That isn’t clear, and again... is conjecture. Even if it were true; there is no way to prove it. The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.
Click to expand...

Regardless, a push didn't deserve death period, and it applies in this case.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> To hell with living in Florida then... Must be the set up capital of the nation, where as if someone wants someone dead then down there in Florida you have the means to justify it.



I agree do not move to Florida. 

Reality is had McGlocklen not gone hands on, just like Treyvon Martin, they would still be alive.


----------



## skews13

miketx said:


> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.[/QUOTE





U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:



You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?

Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?

So you only have self defense rights if you re armed with a gun?

It's now time for an organized effort to deal with not only the coward who attacks women, and shoots un armed people, which where I come from we call cowards.

Which apparently is a label that can accurately be applied to a large portion of gun nut America, but also stand your ground laws.

If that was a family member of mine that was shot. I'm laying in wait for that coward, and I'm going to use Floridas own law against itself.

I'm going to be parking in that spot when that coward is in the neighborhood just knowing he's going to walk up to the drivers side window.

Know what I mean?


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.
> 
> That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.
> 
> I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing indicated in the video to suggest that the victim was drunk. Furthermore, the assailants, nor the spectators estimation of the victims ability to defend himself is of little consequence. If the assailant thought he could get away with his attack, through his own ignorance... That’s on him, and him alone. It isn’t a victims job to educate an attacker about how able they are to defend themselves. Often times that’s considered nothing more than shit talking. The assailant showed his ass, and got his ticket punched. Too bad for Jonny would-be-badass. He made a fatal miscalculation.
Click to expand...

Adding ones family to the mix, what would you have done ? Do you think you would deserve to die for pushing a man down if he was being an total butthead to your wife, girlfriend or whatever she was to him ??  I mean we don't know what this guy was saying, but hopefully someone does if can't go on the lady's testimony.  Were their kids in the car as well ??


----------



## OODA_Loop

skews13 said:


> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?


She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.

Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Adding ones family to the mix, what would you have done ? Do you think you would deserve to die for pushing a man down if he was being an total butthead to your wife, girlfriend or whatever she was to him ??



I look in my toolbox from Kindergarten and keep my hands to myself while I leave the area.


----------



## Circe

beagle9 said:


> Were their kids in the car as well ??



Two little kids in the car with Mom and the other, a five-year-old, in the store with Dad. This is a nasty story.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?
> 
> 
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like all the other projection here right ?? Good grief.
Click to expand...

Specifics... I’m not a mind reader. Neither are you....


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
Click to expand...

Hands on attack that wasn't lethal is returned with a shot to the chest, and this after the guy started the entire event from something as stupid as telling a complete stranger that she and her kids shouldn't be parking in the handicap parking spot ???? Him being a stranger with a gun ??  Like I said before, what if he would have thought that she reached for a gun, would he had shot her in front of her kids under the stand your ground for your handicap parking spot law. ?????  That's what he turned stand your ground law into.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
Click to expand...


Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.
> 
> 
> 
> Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like all the other projection here right ?? Good grief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Specifics... I’m not a mind reader. Neither are you....
Click to expand...

No, but we ain't blind either.


----------



## Lewdog

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hands on attack that wasn't lethal is returned with a shot to the chest, and this after the guy started the entire event from something as stupid as telling a complete stranger that she and her kids shouldn't be parking in the handicap parking spot ???? A stranger with a gun ??  Like I said before, what if he would have thought that she reached for a gun, would he had shot her in front of her kids under the stand your ground for your handicap parking spot ?????
Click to expand...


It's obvious no matter what we say, a few people in this thread don't care.  They have their obvious reasons, and one of which isn't common sense.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.



And under reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death.   Its why the cops didn't arrest.  There are no charges filed.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> It's obvious no matter what we say, a few people in this thread don't care.  They have their obvious reasons, and one of which isn't common sense.




Dont care about what exactly ?


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
Click to expand...




Lewdog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
Click to expand...

Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And under reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death.   Its why the cops didn't arrest.  There are no charges filed.
Click to expand...


What fear?  Fear of a Black person?


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And under reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death.   Its why the cops didn't arrest.  There are no charges filed.
Click to expand...

This needs to have a hearing and a fact finding investigation.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
Click to expand...


Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?

Really?

The guy yelling committed no crime


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> What fear?  Fear of a Black person?


 
No not fear of a black person,   Fear of great bodily injury.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> This needs to have a hearing and a fact finding investigation.



The initial fact finding investigation resulted in the Sheriff passing on charges.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would  physically assault someone else got dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we should follow the Constitution?  Is the Constitution important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat's that got to do with this case and the evidence I saw on the video?
> 
> One guy forcibly shoved a smaller man to the ground and got shot
> The guy who got shot committed assault
> Shooting justfied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it.  It's called the 8th Amendment.  Pushing a guy down who is standing outside your wife's car with your kids in it, isn't equal to the punishment of being shot and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy standing there had not committed any crime
> 
> The guy who assaulted him did
> 
> And the 8th amendment applies to the government not the individual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He hadn't committed a crime "yet."  He was being aggressive by yelling at the woman in the car with the KIDS.
> 
> Really odd that a man is yelling at a woman with kids in the car... but you guys don't give a rat's ass about that.  Where the woman and kids are more vulnerable, but you act like the man that got pushed down is some defenseless child and was attacked by this crazed 500 pound bodybuilder.
Click to expand...


Yet?

And you think the guy who blindsided him could accurately predict the future?


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.
> 
> 
> 
> It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
Click to expand...

Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.


----------



## Circe

Okay, I draw several conclusions from this useful thread.

1. Florida has a serious gun-crazies problem, between all the mass shooters and the self-righteous guys looking to kill someone, anyone they can talk into getting shot.

2. Assume everyone is carrying and retreat from verbal abuse. They're crazy: just get away. America isn't normal anymore. We're all back in Tombstone, Wild West. They'll shoot you same as look at you. I guess this is what it's like to live in Chicago now.

3. Don't park in the handicap spots unless you've got the plate or the hanger. Because some men are just looking for an excuse to terrorize and shoot you, especially if you're a woman.

4. Whatever anyone says, never hit them. Because then they'll draw and shoot to kill: they've been waiting and hoping for that and they've rehearsed it. Just beat feet.

5. I'd better carry too, as soon as I can: even up the odds a little.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This needs to have a hearing and a fact finding investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The initial fact finding investigation resulted in the Sheriff passing on charges.
Click to expand...

Not just the sheriff, because we know how close nit the good ole boys clubs are right ?? Might need a federal investigation if rises to that level.


----------



## skews13

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
Click to expand...


You need to take your own signature advice.

Who was the guy yelling, the parking lot police?

Here, let me give you your own advice.

*Mind your own fucking business.*


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Not just the sheriff, because we know how close nit the good ole boys clubs are right ?? Might need a federal investigation if rises to that level.



So your saying the Sheriff is complicit ?  Isnt that what they said in Zimmerman ?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am arguing no such thing
> 
> A civilian has no authority to pass either bail or sentences for crimes therefore the 8th amendment does not apply
> 
> He shot in self defense the law states that he now has to justify that shooting or be convicted of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU have stated YOU think that someone who simply pushes someone to the ground DESERVES to be shot to death.  So YOU either believe in the principle the 8th Amendment is based on, against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, or YOU don't think everyone deserves equal rights... or you think we should just be the wild west where you can just shoot and kill whoever you want even if you don't feel your life is really at risk.  I'm just going by what YOU have said.
Click to expand...


Where did I say that?

Quote it.

The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences set by the courts not to individual citizens

And you don't know how the guy who got blindsided by a much larger man felt do you?

How would you  feel if some guy a head taller and 100 lbs heavier than you blindsided you ?

Would you maybe feel your life might be in danger?


----------



## Skull Pilot

skews13 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take your own signature advice.
> 
> Who was the guy yelling, the parking lot police?
> 
> Here, let me give you your own advice.
> 
> *Mind your own fucking business.*
Click to expand...


Yelling is not a crime


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Size doesn't matter.  You have no idea what another person can do physically.  How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
Click to expand...


Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face. 

Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.


----------



## OODA_Loop

skews13 said:


> Who was the guy yelling, the parking lot police?



Does not warrant assault.   Committing assault puts you in jeopardy of the assaulted's view of lethality.  You could end up deaded.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the sheriff, because we know how close nit the good ole boys clubs are right ?? Might need a federal investigation if rises to that level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying the Sheriff is complicit ?  Isnt that what they said in Zimmerman ?
Click to expand...

Might or might not be, do you know or just accept the findings always ??


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am arguing no such thing
> 
> A civilian has no authority to pass either bail or sentences for crimes therefore the 8th amendment does not apply
> 
> He shot in self defense the law states that he now has to justify that shooting or be convicted of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU have stated YOU think that someone who simply pushes someone to the ground DESERVES to be shot to death.  So YOU either believe in the principle the 8th Amendment is based on, against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, or YOU don't think everyone deserves equal rights... or you think we should just be the wild west where you can just shoot and kill whoever you want even if you don't feel your life is really at risk.  I'm just going by what YOU have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Quote it.
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences set by the courts not to individual citizens
> 
> And you don't know how the guy who got blindsided by a much larger man felt do you?
> 
> How would you  feel if some guy a head taller and 100 lbs heavier than you blindsided you ?
> 
> Would you maybe feel your life might be in danger?
Click to expand...


The 8th Amendment refers to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Do you honestly not know that?


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.
> 
> 
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
Click to expand...

“His” woman? Misogynist much? And assaulting someone for saying something to someone, in a way you don’t like; does not legally give you the right to assault someone...


----------



## skews13

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This needs to have a hearing and a fact finding investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The initial fact finding investigation resulted in the Sheriff passing on charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just the sheriff, because we know how close nit the good ole boys clubs are right ?? Might need a federal investigation if rises to that level.
Click to expand...


It's not going to happen in Florida. That place is a special kind of stupid. And special stupid requires a special kind of circumstances. 

People better come to understand. If you're going to live by laws like that.

You had god damned better be ready to die by laws like that.

Apparently the special kind of stupid that exists in Florida doesn't understand the concept of the two way street.

I am heartened though by those kids in the Parkland school shooting, who are obviously more intelligent than the dumb ass adults, and use the term adults very loosely here, that they don't believe in gun nut America, and their dumb ass gun nut, small dick, way of thinking, and that generation is going to make some changes in the years to come.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt
> 
> and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
Click to expand...


HE did not touch the woman

he was yelling at her

and I'm sure she was also yelling at him


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.
> 
> 
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
Click to expand...

The victim hadn’t assaulted, or attacked anyone. Quit trying to resort to a “Red Herring”. It doesn’t help you prove your case...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am arguing no such thing
> 
> A civilian has no authority to pass either bail or sentences for crimes therefore the 8th amendment does not apply
> 
> He shot in self defense the law states that he now has to justify that shooting or be convicted of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU have stated YOU think that someone who simply pushes someone to the ground DESERVES to be shot to death.  So YOU either believe in the principle the 8th Amendment is based on, against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, or YOU don't think everyone deserves equal rights... or you think we should just be the wild west where you can just shoot and kill whoever you want even if you don't feel your life is really at risk.  I'm just going by what YOU have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Quote it.
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences set by the courts not to individual citizens
> 
> And you don't know how the guy who got blindsided by a much larger man felt do you?
> 
> How would you  feel if some guy a head taller and 100 lbs heavier than you blindsided you ?
> 
> Would you maybe feel your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 8th Amendment refers to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
> 
> Do you honestly not know that?
Click to expand...


Wow you really don't know that the Bill of rights applies to the government not the citizens?

People cannot set bail or pass sentences for crimes only the government can do that


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming.  Is this shit too complicated for you?
> 
> I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty.  So...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
Click to expand...


He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> Yelling is not a crime



I don't think that's even true.

Remember a couple weeks ago when some leftist woman caught Steve Bannon in a used bookstore and was howling away at him? The bookstore owner called the cops on her and she disappeared.

If someone started howling and shrieking at me in the middle of the supermarket, don't you think they'd call the police? It's threatening, it's disturbing the peace --- yeah, it's against the law and it ought to be. I'd call the police: help definitely needed. 

This guy was definitely breaking the law terrorizing this woman and little kids in the parking lot; he just thought he could get away with it.

I guess he did, too, and achieved his lifetime ambition of killing someone.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling is not a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's even true.
> 
> Remember a couple weeks ago when some leftist woman caught Steve Bannon in a used bookstore and was howling away at him? The bookstore owner called the cops on her and she disappeared.
> 
> If someone started howling and shrieking at me in the middle of the supermarket, don't you think they'd call the police? It's threatening, it's disturbing the peace --- yeah, it's against the law and it ought to be.
> 
> This guy was definitely breaking the law terrorizing this woman and little kids in the parking lot; he just thought he could get away with it.
> 
> I guess he did, too, and achieved his lifetime ambition of killing someone.
Click to expand...


was she charged with a crime?

the book store was private property and the owners of the store had every right to have anyone removed.


----------



## OODA_Loop

skews13 said:


> Apparently the special kind of stupid that exists in Florida doesn't understand the concept of the two way street.



McGlocklin escalated words to action.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing no such thing
> 
> A civilian has no authority to pass either bail or sentences for crimes therefore the 8th amendment does not apply
> 
> He shot in self defense the law states that he now has to justify that shooting or be convicted of a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU have stated YOU think that someone who simply pushes someone to the ground DESERVES to be shot to death.  So YOU either believe in the principle the 8th Amendment is based on, against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, or YOU don't think everyone deserves equal rights... or you think we should just be the wild west where you can just shoot and kill whoever you want even if you don't feel your life is really at risk.  I'm just going by what YOU have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Quote it.
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences set by the courts not to individual citizens
> 
> And you don't know how the guy who got blindsided by a much larger man felt do you?
> 
> How would you  feel if some guy a head taller and 100 lbs heavier than you blindsided you ?
> 
> Would you maybe feel your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 8th Amendment refers to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
> 
> Do you honestly not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't know that the Bill of rights applies to the government not the citizens?
> 
> People cannot set bail or pass sentences for crimes only the government can do that
Click to expand...


I do know, that's why I said they share the same principle.  Do you not know what that means?

Hell you keep saying the 8th Amendment is just about bail.  No the 8th Amendment's MAIN topic is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  Do you know what that means?  That means the punishment should fit the crime... and that everyone should be punished equally.  So when you say that a guy that pushed a guy to the ground deserves to die, you show how little morals you have.  Then if you want to say that, but then the next minute say you support the Constitution, then you just admit your a hypocrite.  

So, what is it then?  You are either stupid, racist, a hypocrite, a troll, or a liar based on the comments you've made in this thread.  

I'll let you chose.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
Click to expand...






 I never said the shooter was defenseless.

He shot AFTER he was violently assaulted by a much larger man.

She could have driven away at any time


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> was she charged with a crime?
> 
> the book store was private property and the owners of the store had every right to have anyone removed.



No, she wouldn't stop yelling when the bookstore guy asked and said he'd call the police, but when he started to dial 911, she bugged out.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
> 
> 
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “His” woman? Misogynist much? And assaulting someone for saying something to someone, in a way you don’t like; does not legally give you the right to assault someone...
Click to expand...

Quit trying to move the goal post or change the subject with your pettyness. If a man is verbally assaulting your wife, girlfriend, woman, old lady or whatever she desires to be reffered to as, then you have the right to defend her honor. 

If the (husband, her man, boyfriend, Boo or whatever he desires to be called by her), felt that his wife, girlfriend, woman, cutie pie, family member or associate was being threatened by a dangerous person in his mind, then his actions to remove that person from his wife, girlfriend etc could have been warranted.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the shooter was defenseless.
> 
> He shot AFTER he was violently assaulted by a much larger man.
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
Click to expand...


Being pushed to the ground because he was intimidating a woman, is NOT defenseless.  If he had been minding his own business and not trying to intimidate a woman, then he wouldn't have gotten knocked on his ass.

Looks to me like the guy only had the balls to yell at her because he thought it was just her and the kids.  If the guy that got shot had been out there with them, the shooter wouldn't have said shit.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing no such thing
> 
> A civilian has no authority to pass either bail or sentences for crimes therefore the 8th amendment does not apply
> 
> He shot in self defense the law states that he now has to justify that shooting or be convicted of a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have stated YOU think that someone who simply pushes someone to the ground DESERVES to be shot to death.  So YOU either believe in the principle the 8th Amendment is based on, against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, or YOU don't think everyone deserves equal rights... or you think we should just be the wild west where you can just shoot and kill whoever you want even if you don't feel your life is really at risk.  I'm just going by what YOU have said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Quote it.
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences set by the courts not to individual citizens
> 
> And you don't know how the guy who got blindsided by a much larger man felt do you?
> 
> How would you  feel if some guy a head taller and 100 lbs heavier than you blindsided you ?
> 
> Would you maybe feel your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 8th Amendment refers to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
> 
> Do you honestly not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't know that the Bill of rights applies to the government not the citizens?
> 
> People cannot set bail or pass sentences for crimes only the government can do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, that's why I said they share the same principle.  Do you not know what that means?
> 
> Hell you keep saying the 8th Amendment is just about bail.  No the 8th Amendment's MAIN topic is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  Do you know what that means?  That means the punishment should fit the crime... and that everyone should be punished equally.  So when you say that a guy that pushed a guy to the ground deserves to die, you show how little morals you have.  Then if you want to say that, but then the next minute say you support the Constitution, then you just admit your a hypocrite.
> 
> So, what is it then?  You are either stupid, racist, a hypocrite, a troll, or a liar based on the comments you've made in this thread.
> 
> I'll let you chose.
Click to expand...


They don't share the same principal at all.

The guy who shot in what he considered to be self defense after being blindsided by a much larger person will not be charged with violating the 8th amendment.

He will be charged with some degree of murder and tried for it.

If he can justify the shooting he will walk


----------



## skews13

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming
> 
> That doesn't make it legal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
Click to expand...


Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.

Or a threat in this case.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “His” woman? Misogynist much? And assaulting someone for saying something to someone, in a way you don’t like; does not legally give you the right to assault someone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit trying to move the goal post or change the subject with your pettyness. If a man is verbally assaulting your wife, girlfriend, woman, old lady or whatever she desires to be reffered to as, then you have the right to defend her honor.
> 
> If the (husband, her man, boyfriend, Boo or whatever he desires to be called by her), felt that his wife, girlfriend, woman, cutie pie, family member or associate was being threatened by a dangerous person in his mind, then his actions to remove that person from his wife, girlfriend etc could have been warranted.
Click to expand...

There is no legal term “verbal assault”, quit trying to appeal to emotion; and stick with the facts presented in the video.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the shooter was defenseless.
> 
> He shot AFTER he was violently assaulted by a much larger man.
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being pushed to the ground because he was intimidating a woman, is NOT defenseless.  If he had been minding his own business and not trying to intimidate a woman, then he wouldn't have gotten knocked on his ass.
> 
> Looks to me like the guy only had the balls to yell at her because he thought it was just her and the kids.  If the guy that got shot had been out there with them, the shooter wouldn't have said shit.
Click to expand...


I never said the shooter was defenseless.

Please stop making up quotes and attributing them to me.

Tell you what the next time you want to tell me what I said use the quote function


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Quit trying to move the goal post or change the subject with your pettyness. If a man is verbally assaulting your wife, girlfriend, woman, old lady or whatever she desires to be reffered to as, then you have the right to defend her honor.



_You have a right to defend her honor ?_


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> She could have driven away at any time



What, and left her boyfriend behind? Just drove off and abandoned him to this furious screamer-killer? Migod, I would never do that, just drive off and leave your mate in danger? Would you do that??


----------



## Skull Pilot

skews13 said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
Click to expand...

HE didn't shoot the woman or the kids 

He shot the guy who assaulted him


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, and left her boyfriend behind? Just drove off and abandoned him to this furious screamer-killer? Migod, I would never do that, just drive off and leave your mate in danger? Would you do that??
Click to expand...


Big strapping guy like that could have walked to the street and gotten in the car


----------



## Circe

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit trying to move the goal post or change the subject with your pettyness. If a man is verbally assaulting your wife, girlfriend, woman, old lady or whatever she desires to be reffered to as, then you have the right to defend her honor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You have a right to defend her honor ?_
Click to expand...



Yeah, I don't think it was her honor that needed defending. More that she and the children were about to be cold-cocked.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, and left her boyfriend behind? Just drove off and abandoned him to this furious screamer-killer? Migod, I would never do that, just drive off and leave your mate in danger? Would you do that??
Click to expand...



Create time and space.  Not go home and leave him.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “His” woman? Misogynist much? And assaulting someone for saying something to someone, in a way you don’t like; does not legally give you the right to assault someone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit trying to move the goal post or change the subject with your pettyness. If a man is verbally assaulting your wife, girlfriend, woman, old lady or whatever she desires to be reffered to as, then you have the right to defend her honor.
> 
> If the (husband, her man, boyfriend, Boo or whatever he desires to be called by her), felt that his wife, girlfriend, woman, cutie pie, family member or associate was being threatened by a dangerous person in his mind, then his actions to remove that person from his wife, girlfriend etc could have been warranted.
Click to expand...

Defending honor is a legal defense for assault now? Who knew? I guess a lot of Muslim fathers with a jar of acid handy are relieved to hear this...


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have stated YOU think that someone who simply pushes someone to the ground DESERVES to be shot to death.  So YOU either believe in the principle the 8th Amendment is based on, against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, or YOU don't think everyone deserves equal rights... or you think we should just be the wild west where you can just shoot and kill whoever you want even if you don't feel your life is really at risk.  I'm just going by what YOU have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Quote it.
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences set by the courts not to individual citizens
> 
> And you don't know how the guy who got blindsided by a much larger man felt do you?
> 
> How would you  feel if some guy a head taller and 100 lbs heavier than you blindsided you ?
> 
> Would you maybe feel your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 8th Amendment refers to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
> 
> Do you honestly not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't know that the Bill of rights applies to the government not the citizens?
> 
> People cannot set bail or pass sentences for crimes only the government can do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, that's why I said they share the same principle.  Do you not know what that means?
> 
> Hell you keep saying the 8th Amendment is just about bail.  No the 8th Amendment's MAIN topic is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  Do you know what that means?  That means the punishment should fit the crime... and that everyone should be punished equally.  So when you say that a guy that pushed a guy to the ground deserves to die, you show how little morals you have.  Then if you want to say that, but then the next minute say you support the Constitution, then you just admit your a hypocrite.
> 
> So, what is it then?  You are either stupid, racist, a hypocrite, a troll, or a liar based on the comments you've made in this thread.
> 
> I'll let you chose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't share the same principal at all.
> 
> The guy who shot in what he considered to be self defense after being blindsided by a much larger person will not be charged with violating the 8th amendment.
> 
> He will be charged with some degree of murder and tried for it.
> 
> If he can justify the shooting he will walk
Click to expand...


They don't?  If you break the law, the punishment you receive is dictated by the Bill of Rights in the 8th Amendment that you can not receive a punishment that the courts rule are cruel and unusual compared to the severity of the crime.  That's EXACTLY the same principle.  But see the issue here is you are a hypocrite that lacks morals.  You'd rather defend and try to scapegoat a murderer, instead of admitting a legal gun carrying citizen abused his right.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Circe said:


> Yeah, I don't think it was her honor that needed defending. More that she and the children were about to be cold-cocked.



Through the window ?


----------



## Lewdog

skews13 said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space.  The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
Click to expand...



If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Circe said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> was she charged with a crime?
> 
> the book store was private property and the owners of the store had every right to have anyone removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she wouldn't stop yelling when the bookstore guy asked and said he'd call the police, but when he started to dial 911, she bugged out.
Click to expand...


so no crime


----------



## Vastator

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “His” woman? Misogynist much? And assaulting someone for saying something to someone, in a way you don’t like; does not legally give you the right to assault someone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit trying to move the goal post or change the subject with your pettyness. If a man is verbally assaulting your wife, girlfriend, woman, old lady or whatever she desires to be reffered to as, then you have the right to defend her honor.
> 
> If the (husband, her man, boyfriend, Boo or whatever he desires to be called by her), felt that his wife, girlfriend, woman, cutie pie, family member or associate was being threatened by a dangerous person in his mind, then his actions to remove that person from his wife, girlfriend etc could have been warranted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending honor is a legal defense for assault now? Who knew? I guess a lot of Muslim fathers with a jar of acid handy are relieved to hear this...
Click to expand...


----------



## Circe

Skull Pilot said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, and left her boyfriend behind? Just drove off and abandoned him to this furious screamer-killer? Migod, I would never do that, just drive off and leave your mate in danger? Would you do that??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big strapping guy like that could have walked to the street and gotten in the car
Click to expand...



Huh. Not a bad point. Okay, that's an interesting variation tactic for escape, just not too far for boyfriend to come over and get in with them.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Quote it.
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences set by the courts not to individual citizens
> 
> And you don't know how the guy who got blindsided by a much larger man felt do you?
> 
> How would you  feel if some guy a head taller and 100 lbs heavier than you blindsided you ?
> 
> Would you maybe feel your life might be in danger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 8th Amendment refers to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
> 
> Do you honestly not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't know that the Bill of rights applies to the government not the citizens?
> 
> People cannot set bail or pass sentences for crimes only the government can do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, that's why I said they share the same principle.  Do you not know what that means?
> 
> Hell you keep saying the 8th Amendment is just about bail.  No the 8th Amendment's MAIN topic is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  Do you know what that means?  That means the punishment should fit the crime... and that everyone should be punished equally.  So when you say that a guy that pushed a guy to the ground deserves to die, you show how little morals you have.  Then if you want to say that, but then the next minute say you support the Constitution, then you just admit your a hypocrite.
> 
> So, what is it then?  You are either stupid, racist, a hypocrite, a troll, or a liar based on the comments you've made in this thread.
> 
> I'll let you chose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't share the same principal at all.
> 
> The guy who shot in what he considered to be self defense after being blindsided by a much larger person will not be charged with violating the 8th amendment.
> 
> He will be charged with some degree of murder and tried for it.
> 
> If he can justify the shooting he will walk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't?  If you break the law, the punishment you receive is dictated by the Bill of Rights in the 8th Amendment that you can not receive a punishment that the courts rule are cruel and unusual compared to the severity of the crime.  That's EXACTLY the same principle.  But see the issue here is you are a hypocrite that lacks morals.  You'd rather defend and try to scapegoat a murderer, instead of admitting a legal gun carrying citizen abused his right.
Click to expand...


No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in


----------



## beagle9

skews13 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This needs to have a hearing and a fact finding investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The initial fact finding investigation resulted in the Sheriff passing on charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just the sheriff, because we know how close nit the good ole boys clubs are right ?? Might need a federal investigation if rises to that level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen in Florida. That place is a special kind of stupid. And special stupid requires a special kind of circumstances.
> 
> People better come to understand. If you're going to live by laws like that.
> 
> You had god damned better be ready to die by laws like that.
> 
> Apparently the special kind of stupid that exists in Florida doesn't understand the concept of the two way street.
> 
> I am heartened though by those kids in the Parkland school shooting, who are obviously more intelligent than the dumb ass adults, and use the term adults very loosely here, that they don't believe in gun nut America, and their dumb ass gun nut, small dick, way of thinking, and that generation is going to make some changes in the years to come.
Click to expand...

Well specific cases shouldn't apply to all of America, and in that one specific case down there where we as citizens got to see this video, there needs to be further investigation of such a case as this. I'm not for using individual cases to punish the good citizens of America as a whole.  I am for common sense gun laws to regulate the activities in which might allow idiots to become armed and dangerous.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the shooter was defenseless.
> 
> He shot AFTER he was violently assaulted by a much larger man.
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being pushed to the ground because he was intimidating a woman, is NOT defenseless.  If he had been minding his own business and not trying to intimidate a woman, then he wouldn't have gotten knocked on his ass.
> 
> Looks to me like the guy only had the balls to yell at her because he thought it was just her and the kids.  If the guy that got shot had been out there with them, the shooter wouldn't have said shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the shooter was defenseless.
> 
> Please stop making up quotes and attributing them to me.
> 
> Tell you what the next time you want to tell me what I said use the quote function
Click to expand...



Yes, you did say that.  You just keep on lying and doing what you do.  I can live with my self.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the shooter was defenseless.
> 
> He shot AFTER he was violently assaulted by a much larger man.
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being pushed to the ground because he was intimidating a woman, is NOT defenseless.  If he had been minding his own business and not trying to intimidate a woman, then he wouldn't have gotten knocked on his ass.
> 
> Looks to me like the guy only had the balls to yell at her because he thought it was just her and the kids.  If the guy that got shot had been out there with them, the shooter wouldn't have said shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the shooter was defenseless.
> 
> Please stop making up quotes and attributing them to me.
> 
> Tell you what the next time you want to tell me what I said use the quote function
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you did say that.  You just keep on lying and doing what you do.  I can live with my self.
Click to expand...

If I did then quote the post


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.



Ah the death rattle.

This almost as satisfying as the proclamation of leaving the thread or putting someone on ignore.


----------



## Circe

OODA_Loop said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> She could have driven away at any time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, and left her boyfriend behind? Just drove off and abandoned him to this furious screamer-killer? Migod, I would never do that, just drive off and leave your mate in danger? Would you do that??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Create time and space.  Not go home and leave him.
Click to expand...


You are saying the same thing as Skull Pilot. Okay, I see your point. I like it. I'll think about that if such a thing comes up. 

Though come to think of it I could make more distance on foot faster than Himself ------------- and he'd never drive away and leave me. Darn, this is really a sad situation, isn't it? I think I'll go play some video game.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 8th Amendment refers to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
> 
> Do you honestly not know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't know that the Bill of rights applies to the government not the citizens?
> 
> People cannot set bail or pass sentences for crimes only the government can do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know, that's why I said they share the same principle.  Do you not know what that means?
> 
> Hell you keep saying the 8th Amendment is just about bail.  No the 8th Amendment's MAIN topic is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  Do you know what that means?  That means the punishment should fit the crime... and that everyone should be punished equally.  So when you say that a guy that pushed a guy to the ground deserves to die, you show how little morals you have.  Then if you want to say that, but then the next minute say you support the Constitution, then you just admit your a hypocrite.
> 
> So, what is it then?  You are either stupid, racist, a hypocrite, a troll, or a liar based on the comments you've made in this thread.
> 
> I'll let you chose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't share the same principal at all.
> 
> The guy who shot in what he considered to be self defense after being blindsided by a much larger person will not be charged with violating the 8th amendment.
> 
> He will be charged with some degree of murder and tried for it.
> 
> If he can justify the shooting he will walk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't?  If you break the law, the punishment you receive is dictated by the Bill of Rights in the 8th Amendment that you can not receive a punishment that the courts rule are cruel and unusual compared to the severity of the crime.  That's EXACTLY the same principle.  But see the issue here is you are a hypocrite that lacks morals.  You'd rather defend and try to scapegoat a murderer, instead of admitting a legal gun carrying citizen abused his right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in
Click to expand...


Wow.  The Bill of Rights has power over the states given to it by Due Process through the 14th Amendment.  

Our educational system is seriously failing our country.  Some of the stuff in this thread EVERY citizen in this country should know in order to be able to vote.


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No his current actions did a great job enough of that.  No past required...
> 
> 
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?
> 
> Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victim hadn’t assaulted, or attacked anyone. Quit trying to resort to a “Red Herring”. It doesn’t help you prove your case...
Click to expand...

You calling the live guy the victim in disregards to the dead guy is quite interesting. I refer to the dead guy as the victim, because he shouldn't be dead to begin with.


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?
> 
> Really?
> 
> The guy yelling committed no crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
Click to expand...

Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?


----------



## Lewdog

Vastator said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you just proved you didn't watch the video.  When the shooter was pushed to the ground, the wife had gotten out of the car and the shooter stepped into her face.
> 
> Seriously, at this point watch the fucking video before you comment anymore.  You are just wasting people's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
Click to expand...


You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
Click to expand...


It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal


----------



## OODA_Loop

Circe said:


> Though come to think of it I could make more distance on foot faster than Himself ------------- and he'd never drive away and leave me. Darn, this is really a sad situation, isn't it? I think I'll go play some video game.


 I would un-ass the vehicle to go get my wife if she were in danger but would not want her to expose herself and leave the car to come to me were I n danger.


----------



## Vastator

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victim hadn’t assaulted, or attacked anyone. Quit trying to resort to a “Red Herring”. It doesn’t help you prove your case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You calling the live guy the victim in disregards to the dead guy is quite interesting. I refer to the dead guy as the victim, because he shouldn't be dead to begin with.
Click to expand...

He’s dead due to his own actions... Don’t assault people just because you think you have the drop on them, and think they can’t defend themselves... You might be dead wrong.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
Click to expand...


You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not


----------



## kaz

miketx said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see any gun until the thug pushed him to the ground.
Click to expand...


Yep, that was part of the murderer's plan to kill someone.  Scream at women in parking lots then kill anyone who tries to help her


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “His” woman? Misogynist much? And assaulting someone for saying something to someone, in a way you don’t like; does not legally give you the right to assault someone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit trying to move the goal post or change the subject with your pettyness. If a man is verbally assaulting your wife, girlfriend, woman, old lady or whatever she desires to be reffered to as, then you have the right to defend her honor.
> 
> If the (husband, her man, boyfriend, Boo or whatever he desires to be called by her), felt that his wife, girlfriend, woman, cutie pie, family member or associate was being threatened by a dangerous person in his mind, then his actions to remove that person from his wife, girlfriend etc could have been warranted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending honor is a legal defense for assault now? Who knew? I guess a lot of Muslim fathers with a jar of acid handy are relieved to hear this...
Click to expand...

Good Grief... Defending her honor as in you love her enough not to allow her to be threatened or verbally abused by a mental midjet trying to defend the honor of the handicap parking spot in an abusive way.


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
Click to expand...

Pure conjecture, with no way whatsoever to prove. That's what you need to believe, to justify the assault of the man. Sobering moment isn't it? To think.... "That could have been me"... Indeed. It could, if one thinks they can assault someone without repercussion. Indeed....


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)."  How does that make sense?  Are blacks racist?  Is that why they do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, WTF does murder have to do with an OLD Black woman with a coupon for depends, a guy wearing socks in a pool, and a young black girl sleeping on a couch at YALE have to do with worrying about being murdered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing, I never said it did.   Actually, you brought this up in our discussion about murder, not me.
> 
> Fact:  Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks
> 
> LewDemocrat:  OMG, whites have a race issue
> 
> That's what makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I said people like this guy have been over-reacting because of race a lot in all kinds of situations.
> 
> Fact, Blacks kill more Blacks than Blacks kill Whites.  Now another thing, and this is the last I'll say, the percentage of Whites killed by Blacks, compared to Blacks killed by Whites, isn't that big of a gap, and to be quite honest, it could very easily be made up by the fact that a lot of Black deaths go unsolved because the cops don't care to put as much resources towards finding the killer unless they are someone of importance.
> 
> Now that's a fact.  The less money you make, if you are a minority, and if you live in an urban area, the less police resources that will be used to solve your murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?
> 
> You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.
Click to expand...


Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!

It's pathetic how Democrats are pushing the idiotic narrative that we've all turned into 50s Alabama just to try to help you win elections.  It's so divisive and destructive to your own country.  That's why I keep pointing out that race whoring is in fact racism.  You're harming no one more than blacks and it's for your own selfish interest, political power.  It's pathetic


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Good Grief... Defending her honor as in you love her enough not to allow her to be threatened or verbally abused by a mental midjet trying to defend the honor of the handicap parking spot in an abusive way.



Doesn't give you right to put your hands on and slam someone to the ground.   Use your big boy words.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, WTF does murder have to do with an OLD Black woman with a coupon for depends, a guy wearing socks in a pool, and a young black girl sleeping on a couch at YALE have to do with worrying about being murdered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, I never said it did.   Actually, you brought this up in our discussion about murder, not me.
> 
> Fact:  Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks
> 
> LewDemocrat:  OMG, whites have a race issue
> 
> That's what makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I said people like this guy have been over-reacting because of race a lot in all kinds of situations.
> 
> Fact, Blacks kill more Blacks than Blacks kill Whites.  Now another thing, and this is the last I'll say, the percentage of Whites killed by Blacks, compared to Blacks killed by Whites, isn't that big of a gap, and to be quite honest, it could very easily be made up by the fact that a lot of Black deaths go unsolved because the cops don't care to put as much resources towards finding the killer unless they are someone of importance.
> 
> Now that's a fact.  The less money you make, if you are a minority, and if you live in an urban area, the less police resources that will be used to solve your murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?
> 
> You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?

Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?

Now those are REAL statistics.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Yep, that was part of the murderer's plan to kill someone.  Scream at women in parking lots then kill anyone who tries to help her



So he was hunting over bait ?


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> HE did not touch the woman
> 
> he was yelling at her
> 
> and I'm sure she was also yelling at him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?
Click to expand...

Show the facts. Don't tell us about "them". Don't worry. We'll wait...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
Click to expand...


  No...that would be murder.


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
Click to expand...


True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC


----------



## skews13

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
Click to expand...


Lets not forget about the children in the car. What if he would have been off balance when he made one of those shots and hit one of those kids?

Does shit for brains Florida law still protect him?

The bottom line here is a man defending a woman and children is dead, and Florida law protects the shooter.

The shooter is not only a coward, but in the eyes of those children, whom he has now terrorized for life, is a murderer, but in any grown ass man with a pair is a coward and a murderer, and in the eyes of God is a murderer.

In the eyes of Florida is a hero. But then lets consider who we're discussing here.


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see any gun until the thug pushed him to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that was part of the murderer's plan to kill someone.  Scream at women in parking lots then kill anyone who tries to help her
Click to expand...

This sounds serious. If you have some way of proving your assertion, please inform local law enforcement. This is too important to be relegated to message board banter...


----------



## Lewdog

Don't let facts get in the way of your stance though.

"The most detailed racial data have limits: They are confined to cases in which one person was killed and one person did the killing, eliminating about 17 percent of homicides. Also, police have to know and provide the backgrounds of not only the victims but the perpetrators, too – meaning that thousands of cases left unsolved and with no description of the person who committed the crimes are discounted. *In total, about 61 percent of the 15,696 homicides committed in 2015 are excluded*."

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
Click to expand...


    Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swish, you didn't address the point.  You said the guy did not threaten her.  If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat.  I sure the fuck would.  I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between pushing someone who's screaming at your woman and shooting the guy who pushed you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is not assault.
Click to expand...


I never said it was "assault," so?


----------



## Lewdog

Vastator said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the facts. Don't tell us about "them". Don't worry. Well wait...
Click to expand...


Oh, so now you are going to deny it?  This should be fun.  So you're going to say now that you haven't said you are proud to be white and think Blacks are inferior to whites?


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
Click to expand...


Threatening people is a crime.  

So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.  

Again with the stupid argument

Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation

Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.

That's totally idiotic


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response you escalate the situation?
> How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between pushing someone who's screaming at your woman and shooting the guy who pushed you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is not assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it was "assault," so?
Click to expand...


  So they guy had no reason to assault the shooter?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> 
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
Click to expand...


   Who threatened anyone?


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
Click to expand...



still have not proved that yet have ya


----------



## beagle9

Vastator said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He stepped up into her face as he was yelling at her.  He's a man.  She's a woman... with KIDS in the car.  Really odd how you guys are fucking saying how defenseless the shooter was, but you don't give a shit about the woman and the kids.  What scumbags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pure conjecture, with no way whatsoever to prove. That's what you need to believe, to justify the assault of the man. Sobering moment isn't it? To think.... "That could have been me"... Indeed. It could, if one thinks they can assault someone without repercussion. Indeed....
Click to expand...

A friend's son's Jeep was in the process of being stolen, and the dad went and jumped on the hood of the get away vehicle once he stopped the Jeep from being stolen, but the crooks floored it throwing him from the hood, and he broke some bones in the process.  Yeah he was crazy to do what he did, and yes he was defending his son's honor in showing how much he loved him by not allowing his Jeep to be stolen on his first day of college, but it cost him in the end.

It doesn't make the crooks any less crooks, and they got away, but he said he would do it again except for the part that got him hurt.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of thing is why in many states that have CCW, still have laws where you can't wear the gun into an establishment that serves alcohol.  If you got guys like this idiot that can't be responsible with his gun in a situation like this, could you imagine how many people would get killed if you had a bunch of CCW people getting drunk off their ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Democrat argument, argue from theory, ignore reality.
> 
> In reality, the psycho WOULD carry the gun in the bar while everyone else would obey the law and be unarmed to defend themselves.
> 
> This happens over and over and yet you have a complete inability to learn from reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory that is still being studied today is still being studied today because it is supported by reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings.  Got it.  Thanks for pointing that out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disarming honest citizens?  That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either fuck up or don't.  You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.
Click to expand...


Here's a hint.  The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.

The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.

I realize that was very subtle


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pure conjecture, with no way whatsoever to prove. That's what you need to believe, to justify the assault of the man. Sobering moment isn't it? To think.... "That could have been me"... Indeed. It could, if one thinks they can assault someone without repercussion. Indeed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A friend's son's Jeep was in the process of being stolen, and the dad went and jumped on the hood of the get away vehicle once he stopped the Jeep from being stolen, but the crooks floored it throwing him from the hood, and he broke some bones in the process.  Yeah he was crazy to do what he did, and yes he was defending his son's honor in showing how much he loved him by not allowing his Jeep to be stolen on his first day of college, but it cost him in the end.
> 
> It doesn't make the crooks any less crooks, and they got away, but he said he would do it again except for the part that got him hurt.
Click to expand...


  Thats stupid.
He should have just shot em.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of thing is why in many states that have CCW, still have laws where you can't wear the gun into an establishment that serves alcohol.  If you got guys like this idiot that can't be responsible with his gun in a situation like this, could you imagine how many people would get killed if you had a bunch of CCW people getting drunk off their ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Democrat argument, argue from theory, ignore reality.
> 
> In reality, the psycho WOULD carry the gun in the bar while everyone else would obey the law and be unarmed to defend themselves.
> 
> This happens over and over and yet you have a complete inability to learn from reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory that is still being studied today is still being studied today because it is supported by reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings.  Got it.  Thanks for pointing that out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disarming honest citizens?  That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either fuck up or don't.  You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a hint.  The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.
> 
> The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.
> 
> I realize that was very subtle
Click to expand...


And I told you that you don't know who the honest and dishonest ones until they do something dishonest.  This isn't Minority Report where psychics tell you ahead of time who will commit crimes.


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, a punk ass gun nut with a concealed carry permit considers women and children a fair fight.
> 
> Or a threat in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the facts. Don't tell us about "them". Don't worry. Well wait...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are going to deny it?  This should be fun.  So you're going to say now that you haven't said you are proud to be white and think Blacks are inferior to whites?
Click to expand...

I am encouraging you to prove your claim. Facts are all that matter. Since you seem to relish the opportunity; have at it. Just make sure it's relevant to the topic.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Grief... Defending her honor as in you love her enough not to allow her to be threatened or verbally abused by a mental midjet trying to defend the honor of the handicap parking spot in an abusive way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't give you right to put your hands on and slam someone to the ground.   Use your big boy words.
Click to expand...

I would bet that if someone was cursing at your wife with your kids in the car, you would have reacted the same wouldn't you ?? I know what I would have done, and I might not be here either. Ohh well.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing someone down can cause death but its not lethal force. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Do you understand what an officer means when he says lethal force? Doesnt seem like it, and I dont care to try to teach someone who cant understand something so simplistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
Click to expand...


You're just the hero who would let psychotic men scream at your wife in parking lots.  I actually doubt your story you would do that.

The psycho who murdered him staged the event and repeated it until he got what he wanted, to kill someone.  If you repeatedly yell at people for where they park, someone will respond.  No responsible gun owner would ever condone a trap that is certain to end in a shooting.  Then there's you ...


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> I would bet that if someone was cursing at your wife with your kids in the car, you would have reacted the same wouldn't you ?? I know what I would have done, and I might not be here either. Ohh well.



No.  I am armed and I would find myself in situation with two outcomes: I have to fight and retain a weapon or shoot someone.

Ill pass on both.    However,   if I or they were assaulted game on.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, notice that the majority of second amendment supporters are not on the side of the shooter.
> 
> But yes, that this many people would argue that yelling at a woman over where she parked while packing is not an unreasonably dangerous situation to create is a bit scary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven’t heard a single poster endorse the confrontation of the woman, who parked in the handicapped spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it wasn't a crime so it doesn't matter
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if a psycho man screams at your wife in a parking lot.  You are so full of shit


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with "the Constitution?"


----------



## Flash

Clearwater yankee transplant and Negroes arguing over a parking place.  What could possible go wrong?


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> 
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
Click to expand...


WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.

Murder is State law, not Federal law


----------



## BlackFlag

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


The victim should have taken the gun from the weak murderer and killed him as his final act.


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that was a white woman with kids in the car, this thread wouldn't even exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. Madame Cleo... There are actual facts relevant to this incident. Let’s use those.... Mmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean facts like in other threads you've been proud to announce how proud you are to be white and you think Black people are inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pure conjecture, with no way whatsoever to prove. That's what you need to believe, to justify the assault of the man. Sobering moment isn't it? To think.... "That could have been me"... Indeed. It could, if one thinks they can assault someone without repercussion. Indeed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A friend's son's Jeep was in the process of being stolen, and the dad went and jumped on the hood of the get away vehicle once he stopped the Jeep from being stolen, but the crooks floored it throwing him from the hood, and he broke some bones in the process.  Yeah he was crazy to do what he did, and yes he was defending his son's honor in showing how much he loved him by not allowing his Jeep to be stolen on his first day of college, but it cost him in the end.
> 
> It doesn't make the crooks any less crooks, and they got away, but he said he would do it again except for the part that got him hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats stupid.
> He should have just shot em.
Click to expand...

We'll he probably would have, but many factors were involved that held him back.. He is the kind that would have shot them, so they better be glad he was unarmed on that day.


----------



## beagle9

BlackFlag said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The victim should have taken the gun from the weak murderer and killed him as his final act.
Click to expand...

What would have happened then ??


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you really don't know that the Bill of rights applies to the government not the citizens?
> 
> People cannot set bail or pass sentences for crimes only the government can do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do know, that's why I said they share the same principle.  Do you not know what that means?
> 
> Hell you keep saying the 8th Amendment is just about bail.  No the 8th Amendment's MAIN topic is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  Do you know what that means?  That means the punishment should fit the crime... and that everyone should be punished equally.  So when you say that a guy that pushed a guy to the ground deserves to die, you show how little morals you have.  Then if you want to say that, but then the next minute say you support the Constitution, then you just admit your a hypocrite.
> 
> So, what is it then?  You are either stupid, racist, a hypocrite, a troll, or a liar based on the comments you've made in this thread.
> 
> I'll let you chose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't share the same principal at all.
> 
> The guy who shot in what he considered to be self defense after being blindsided by a much larger person will not be charged with violating the 8th amendment.
> 
> He will be charged with some degree of murder and tried for it.
> 
> If he can justify the shooting he will walk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't?  If you break the law, the punishment you receive is dictated by the Bill of Rights in the 8th Amendment that you can not receive a punishment that the courts rule are cruel and unusual compared to the severity of the crime.  That's EXACTLY the same principle.  But see the issue here is you are a hypocrite that lacks morals.  You'd rather defend and try to scapegoat a murderer, instead of admitting a legal gun carrying citizen abused his right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  The Bill of Rights has power over the states given to it by Due Process through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Our educational system is seriously failing our country.  Some of the stuff in this thread EVERY citizen in this country should know in order to be able to vote.
Click to expand...


I cannot violate your 8th amendment rights, Idiot

Only the government can violate your 8th amendment rights


----------



## BlackFlag

beagle9 said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The victim should have taken the gun from the weak murderer and killed him as his final act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would have happened then ??
Click to expand...

Both would be dead.  One less trigger-happy nutjob walking around.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.
> 
> And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what the guy was saying.
> Battery,what the black guy did is assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what the law is: there is no difference between yelling and assault – ‘big’ or otherwise.
> 
> Yelling can be perceived as a threat, justifying the use of deadly force as self-defense; physical contact (battery) is not required to justify the use of deadly force in Florida.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yelling at someone is not assault.
Click to expand...


Not unless you're threatening them, which he was.  It was a full grown man and a woman who was yelling at her over where she parked.  Her boyfriend had every right and responsibility to protect her


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
Click to expand...

That's what I think too.


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack  Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal.  He was just pushed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense of his woman means nothing eh ?? Remember this,  before you choose to use self defense in regards to another person being assaulted or attacked you best think twice, because if you intervene you could be the one killed, and unless you are willing to risk life and limb, then just stay home and never go anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victim hadn’t assaulted, or attacked anyone. Quit trying to resort to a “Red Herring”. It doesn’t help you prove your case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You calling the live guy the victim in disregards to the dead guy is quite interesting. I refer to the dead guy as the victim, because he shouldn't be dead to begin with.
Click to expand...

The live guy is the victim of an assault committed by the now dead guy


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
Click to expand...

another mind reader


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
Click to expand...


What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about his fists, moron.  I mean duh.  How did you possibly not get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case did he place his hands on anyone ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
Click to expand...


I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposed to be trained?
> 
> Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?
> 
> 
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
Click to expand...


Do you know he was threatening anyone

There was no audio

Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy

Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?


----------



## Flash

As uncouth as it is and as much as it might piss you off another man arguing with your wife is not provocation enough to attack by shoving him down.    

As uncouth as it is and as much as it might piss you off a man shoving you to the ground is not provocation enough to kill him. 

However, the responsible party is the one that initiated the physical contact.


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> In that case did he place his hands on anyone ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
Click to expand...


Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do know, that's why I said they share the same principle.  Do you not know what that means?
> 
> Hell you keep saying the 8th Amendment is just about bail.  No the 8th Amendment's MAIN topic is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  Do you know what that means?  That means the punishment should fit the crime... and that everyone should be punished equally.  So when you say that a guy that pushed a guy to the ground deserves to die, you show how little morals you have.  Then if you want to say that, but then the next minute say you support the Constitution, then you just admit your a hypocrite.
> 
> So, what is it then?  You are either stupid, racist, a hypocrite, a troll, or a liar based on the comments you've made in this thread.
> 
> I'll let you chose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't share the same principal at all.
> 
> The guy who shot in what he considered to be self defense after being blindsided by a much larger person will not be charged with violating the 8th amendment.
> 
> He will be charged with some degree of murder and tried for it.
> 
> If he can justify the shooting he will walk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't?  If you break the law, the punishment you receive is dictated by the Bill of Rights in the 8th Amendment that you can not receive a punishment that the courts rule are cruel and unusual compared to the severity of the crime.  That's EXACTLY the same principle.  But see the issue here is you are a hypocrite that lacks morals.  You'd rather defend and try to scapegoat a murderer, instead of admitting a legal gun carrying citizen abused his right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  The Bill of Rights has power over the states given to it by Due Process through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Our educational system is seriously failing our country.  Some of the stuff in this thread EVERY citizen in this country should know in order to be able to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot violate your 8th amendment rights, Idiot
> 
> Only the government can violate your 8th amendment rights
Click to expand...


You dumbfuck.  I've told you at least 3 times now I never said that.  I said they share the same PRINCIPLE.  If you agree with the Constitution which gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment, then in life, if you don't feel the same way, you are a hypocrite, which you've proven.

You said that the guy DESERVED TO DIE, for committing simple assault by pushing the guy to the ground.  The punishment does not fit the crime.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective



One is physical assault.

One are mean words.

The law only supports lethal force in one of those circumstances.


----------



## kaz

CHAZBUKOWSKI said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHAZBUKOWSKI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
> As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
> And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder.  That isn't how you act when you're armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure as shit does.  I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I can't believe any second amendment supporter wouldn't feel that way.
> 
> And in this case, the shooter did more than interject himself into a confrontation, he started it by yelling at the woman in the parking lot.
> 
> I always argue to leftists that they don't have actual standards because they only apply their standards to Republicans, never themselves.  A standard is something you apply to yourself first, or it's just an attack, not a standard.
> 
> That's why I won't back down from the argument that if you're carrying, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to avoid conflicts and you only produce the gun when you can't.  Screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot because you don't like where she parked isn't it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His actions are so out of line with responsible gun carry I cannot outright dismiss the suggestion that he was itching for something like this.  Hope it wasn’t so, but if not, what was he thinking?
Click to expand...


Well, he was carrying and starting confrontation after confrontation with people over where they parked.  Obviously that was going to end in a shooting.  It's hard to believe he didn't realize that


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Click to expand...


Yeah protection from the government not other citizens


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Well, he was carrying and starting confrontation after confrontation with people over where they parked.  Obviously that was going to end in a shooting.  It's hard to believe he didn't realize that



But it didn't until someone assaulted him.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, I never said it did.   Actually, you brought this up in our discussion about murder, not me.
> 
> Fact:  Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks
> 
> LewDemocrat:  OMG, whites have a race issue
> 
> That's what makes no sense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I said people like this guy have been over-reacting because of race a lot in all kinds of situations.
> 
> Fact, Blacks kill more Blacks than Blacks kill Whites.  Now another thing, and this is the last I'll say, the percentage of Whites killed by Blacks, compared to Blacks killed by Whites, isn't that big of a gap, and to be quite honest, it could very easily be made up by the fact that a lot of Black deaths go unsolved because the cops don't care to put as much resources towards finding the killer unless they are someone of importance.
> 
> Now that's a fact.  The less money you make, if you are a minority, and if you live in an urban area, the less police resources that will be used to solve your murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?
> 
> You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?
> 
> Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?
> 
> Now those are REAL statistics.
Click to expand...


What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand the difference.  It can cause death and its used as force....its lethal force.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just the hero who would let psychotic men scream at your wife in parking lots.  I actually doubt your story you would do that.
> 
> The psycho who murdered him staged the event and repeated it until he got what he wanted, to kill someone.  If you repeatedly yell at people for where they park, someone will respond.  No responsible gun owner would ever condone a trap that is certain to end in a shooting.  Then there's you ...
Click to expand...


I would have left the parking lot if it were me.  My wife would have done the same.  
See I am a CCW permit holder and I make it a point not to escalate situations.


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> 
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, notice that the majority of second amendment supporters are not on the side of the shooter.
> 
> But yes, that this many people would argue that yelling at a woman over where she parked while packing is not an unreasonably dangerous situation to create is a bit scary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven’t heard a single poster endorse the confrontation of the woman, who parked in the handicapped spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it wasn't a crime so it doesn't matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if a psycho man screams at your wife in a parking lot.  You are so full of shit
Click to expand...


No it doesn't

I'm not going to assault a person for yelling nor would my wife want me to.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...that would be murder.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was murder.  That's my point.  I carry, and I badly want to avoid ever using my gun.  I don't view life as a video game where the goal is to kill someone and have it legally justified so you don't get in trouble.  The guilt that I staged the shooting would haunt me forever.  That's what awaits this guy if he has a soul.

When he carried and repeatedly initiated aggression, a shooting was going to happen.  Yes, it was murder


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't share the same principal at all.
> 
> The guy who shot in what he considered to be self defense after being blindsided by a much larger person will not be charged with violating the 8th amendment.
> 
> He will be charged with some degree of murder and tried for it.
> 
> If he can justify the shooting he will walk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?  If you break the law, the punishment you receive is dictated by the Bill of Rights in the 8th Amendment that you can not receive a punishment that the courts rule are cruel and unusual compared to the severity of the crime.  That's EXACTLY the same principle.  But see the issue here is you are a hypocrite that lacks morals.  You'd rather defend and try to scapegoat a murderer, instead of admitting a legal gun carrying citizen abused his right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  The Bill of Rights has power over the states given to it by Due Process through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Our educational system is seriously failing our country.  Some of the stuff in this thread EVERY citizen in this country should know in order to be able to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot violate your 8th amendment rights, Idiot
> 
> Only the government can violate your 8th amendment rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbfuck.  I've told you at least 3 times now I never said that.  I said they share the same PRINCIPLE.  If you agree with the Constitution which gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment, then in life, if you don't feel the same way, you are a hypocrite, which you've proven.
> 
> You said that the guy DESERVED TO DIE, for committing simple assault by pushing the guy to the ground.  The punishment does not fit the crime.
Click to expand...


All right FUCK WAD

quote the post where I said he deserved to die


----------



## kaz

skews13 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets not forget about the children in the car. What if he would have been off balance when he made one of those shots and hit one of those kids?
> 
> Does shit for brains Florida law still protect him?
> 
> The bottom line here is a man defending a woman and children is dead, and Florida law protects the shooter.
> 
> The shooter is not only a coward, but in the eyes of those children, whom he has now terrorized for life, is a murderer, but in any grown ass man with a pair is a coward and a murderer, and in the eyes of God is a murderer.
> 
> In the eyes of Florida is a hero. But then lets consider who we're discussing here.
Click to expand...


I disagree on your accusations about Florida law.  This isn't a stand your ground situation.  This was a staged situation by the shooter.  It was murder


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I said people like this guy have been over-reacting because of race a lot in all kinds of situations.
> 
> Fact, Blacks kill more Blacks than Blacks kill Whites.  Now another thing, and this is the last I'll say, the percentage of Whites killed by Blacks, compared to Blacks killed by Whites, isn't that big of a gap, and to be quite honest, it could very easily be made up by the fact that a lot of Black deaths go unsolved because the cops don't care to put as much resources towards finding the killer unless they are someone of importance.
> 
> Now that's a fact.  The less money you make, if you are a minority, and if you live in an urban area, the less police resources that will be used to solve your murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?
> 
> You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?
> 
> Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?
> 
> Now those are REAL statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?
Click to expand...


I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.  

I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
Click to expand...


How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?  

I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.

But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> I disagree on your accusations about Florida law.  This isn't a stand your ground situation.  This was a staged situation by the shooter.  It was murder



So the sheriff is wrong ?


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd escalate the situation by not screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot while I'm packing?  Seriously?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference between pushing someone who's screaming at your woman and shooting the guy who pushed you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is not assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it was "assault," so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they guy had no reason to assault the shooter?
Click to expand...


You're word parsing


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?
> 
> You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?
> 
> Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?
> 
> Now those are REAL statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
Click to expand...

Come on you lying sack of shit

Quote the post where I said the words you claim I said

You haven't done it because you can't


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
Click to expand...

You get in the car and drive away


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?  If you break the law, the punishment you receive is dictated by the Bill of Rights in the 8th Amendment that you can not receive a punishment that the courts rule are cruel and unusual compared to the severity of the crime.  That's EXACTLY the same principle.  But see the issue here is you are a hypocrite that lacks morals.  You'd rather defend and try to scapegoat a murderer, instead of admitting a legal gun carrying citizen abused his right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  The Bill of Rights has power over the states given to it by Due Process through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Our educational system is seriously failing our country.  Some of the stuff in this thread EVERY citizen in this country should know in order to be able to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot violate your 8th amendment rights, Idiot
> 
> Only the government can violate your 8th amendment rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbfuck.  I've told you at least 3 times now I never said that.  I said they share the same PRINCIPLE.  If you agree with the Constitution which gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment, then in life, if you don't feel the same way, you are a hypocrite, which you've proven.
> 
> You said that the guy DESERVED TO DIE, for committing simple assault by pushing the guy to the ground.  The punishment does not fit the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right FUCK WAD
> 
> quote the post where I said he deserved to die
Click to expand...


You said in this thread that him being dumb enough to assault him, he deserved to die.  If I'm going to look through all these pages to give the the exact post number it is going to be worth my while.  So you want to bet on it?


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who threatened anyone?
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The Bill of Rights has power over the states given to it by Due Process through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Our educational system is seriously failing our country.  Some of the stuff in this thread EVERY citizen in this country should know in order to be able to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot violate your 8th amendment rights, Idiot
> 
> Only the government can violate your 8th amendment rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbfuck.  I've told you at least 3 times now I never said that.  I said they share the same PRINCIPLE.  If you agree with the Constitution which gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment, then in life, if you don't feel the same way, you are a hypocrite, which you've proven.
> 
> You said that the guy DESERVED TO DIE, for committing simple assault by pushing the guy to the ground.  The punishment does not fit the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right FUCK WAD
> 
> quote the post where I said he deserved to die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said in this thread that him being dumb enough to assault him, he deserved to die.  If I'm going to look through all these pages to give the the exact post number it is going to be worth my while.  So you want to bet on it?
Click to expand...


Quote the post

I never said that and you refuse to prove that I did


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.


No it wasnt
Which executive orders did Trump sign on Day One?


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Democrat argument, argue from theory, ignore reality.
> 
> In reality, the psycho WOULD carry the gun in the bar while everyone else would obey the law and be unarmed to defend themselves.
> 
> This happens over and over and yet you have a complete inability to learn from reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theory that is still being studied today is still being studied today because it is supported by reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings.  Got it.  Thanks for pointing that out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disarming honest citizens?  That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either fuck up or don't.  You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a hint.  The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.
> 
> The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.
> 
> I realize that was very subtle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I told you that you don't know who the honest and dishonest ones until they do something dishonest.  This isn't Minority Report where psychics tell you ahead of time who will commit crimes.
Click to expand...


Asked and answered.  They identify themselves.  Your law identifies them as the honest ones follow the law and the dishonest ones don't.  Then you've created a situation where the dishonest ones are the only ones armed.  Good job


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the law..... you have to be in fear of death or grievious bodily harm.....  and since the attacker attacked the guy violently and then kept advancing..... it was on him....not the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only poster on this thread who sees the man advancing.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to watch the video, he hikes up his pants and steps forward..... he only steps back as the man points the gun at him.... and by then it is too late...
Click to expand...


No, it is not.  Don't try this or you will wind up in jail like this guy almost certainly will.  There was no reason to pull the trigger in this scenario.  None whatsoever!


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not it's dictated by the laws and statutes of the state the crime was committed in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The Bill of Rights has power over the states given to it by Due Process through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Our educational system is seriously failing our country.  Some of the stuff in this thread EVERY citizen in this country should know in order to be able to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot violate your 8th amendment rights, Idiot
> 
> Only the government can violate your 8th amendment rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbfuck.  I've told you at least 3 times now I never said that.  I said they share the same PRINCIPLE.  If you agree with the Constitution which gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment, then in life, if you don't feel the same way, you are a hypocrite, which you've proven.
> 
> You said that the guy DESERVED TO DIE, for committing simple assault by pushing the guy to the ground.  The punishment does not fit the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right FUCK WAD
> 
> quote the post where I said he deserved to die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said in this thread that him being dumb enough to assault him, he deserved to die.  If I'm going to look through all these pages to give the the exact post number it is going to be worth my while.  So you want to bet on it?
Click to expand...


You're the one who is obligated to prove the claims you make

so prove it or admit to being the lying sack of shit that you are


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I think too.
Click to expand...


So you advocate shrinking from confrontation and extreme escalation from a shove to killing someone.  Got it


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another mind reader
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark on the video and watch the next 20 seconds


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I think too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you advocate shrinking from confrontation and extreme escalation from a shove to killing someone.  Got it
Click to expand...


I guess I am mature enough to know that some wacko yelling doesn't equal a threat to my or my wife's safety

I'll ask you again

If you were blindsided by a person much larger than you and laid out on the pavement would you feel your life might be in danger?


----------



## miketx

Lol. Close this idiot fest topic.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasnt
> Which executive orders did Trump sign on Day One?
Click to expand...


Sorry it was the first bill he signed privately and refuses to release a picture of him signing it.

President Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Click to expand...


Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another mind reader
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark on the video and watch the next 20 seconds
Click to expand...


There was no audio on the video in the parking lot so you don't know what the guy was saying


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theory that is still being studied today is still being studied today because it is supported by reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings.  Got it.  Thanks for pointing that out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disarming honest citizens?  That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either fuck up or don't.  You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a hint.  The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.
> 
> The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.
> 
> I realize that was very subtle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I told you that you don't know who the honest and dishonest ones until they do something dishonest.  This isn't Minority Report where psychics tell you ahead of time who will commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered.  They identify themselves.  Your law identifies them as the honest ones follow the law and the dishonest ones don't.  Then you've created a situation where the dishonest ones are the only ones armed.  Good job
Click to expand...


This idiot that murdered this man was a legal gun owner.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
Click to expand...

I watched it once

I'm not watching it again

How about you answer my question?


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
Click to expand...


Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you

You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> President Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns



Obama Adminstration said if you cant manage your finances - you cant be fit to own a gun.  Not true.   This was absent an adjudication of mental incompetence.

Trump was right to terminate this practice.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
Click to expand...


If I was screaming at the guy's wife when he did it, I'd think if he leveled me then backed off like this guy did, he probably was just protecting his wife and wanted me to stop.  If he wanted to kill me for screaming at his wife over where they parked, he'd be unlikely to back off.

But hey, if I'm this guy, it's what I designed.  I can kill him now.  Particularly since he backed off giving me the chance to get my gun


----------



## The Professor

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly
> 
> A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has no bearing on the case now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.    If it goes to hearing.     Defense will produce incidents and professional testimony of death due to head injuries from being pushed or falling onto hard surfaces.    That reasonable fear is justification for lethal force under Florida law
Click to expand...


A jury will never see such evidence or hear such testimony. Michael Drejka (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), did not kill Markeis McGlockton (hereinafter referred to as the victim) because he feared being shoved. He shot and killed the victim after he had been pushed to the ground. The potential injuries from that shove are as meaningless as the price of wheat in China and the actual injuries the defendant received are equally irrelevant. You are not familiar with Florida law so I will explain. First, here are the applicable Florida Statutes which define when and what type of force can be used in self defense:

*776.012* Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. In the quoted statute deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to *PREVENT* imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time. You seem to think that somehow the defendant was protecting himself from sort of harm by killing the victim. One word: Ridiculous. Whatever injury the defendant sustained as a result of the shoving would be not have been avoided nor alleviated by killing the assailant afterwards..

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.

CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.

But that is just my own humble opinion (and yes I lied about the humble part).


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I was screaming at the guy's wife when he did it, I'd think if he leveled me then backed off like this guy did, he probably was just protecting his wife and wanted me to stop.  If he wanted to kill me for screaming at his wife over where they parked, he'd be unlikely to back off.
> 
> But hey, if I'm this guy, it's what I designed.  I can kill him now.  Particularly since he backed off giving me the chance to get my gun
Click to expand...


Don't pretend to know what other people are thinking


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Adminstration said if you cant manage your finances - you cant be fit to own a gun.  Not true.   This was absent an adjudication of mental incompetence.
> 
> Trump was right to terminate this practice.
Click to expand...


No the law was if you receive money from the federal government for disability that is for mental illness, you can not legally own a gun.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong bud, because a push doesn't warrant being killed after the pusher disengaged immediately afterwards and stepped back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being knocked down onto the pavement can and will cause death death or great bodily harm or injury.  You can parade many credible medical professionals to testify.
> 
> Stepping back from an attack on someone doesn't mean the attack is over.
Click to expand...


Only on this planet.  Your planet may have different rules, but the guy was not a threat.  If he had attempted to close the distance to the guy of the ground after the gun was pulled, he would have been justified.  As it stands, he does not have any justification to pull the trigger.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you
> 
> You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit
Click to expand...



THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

"SKULL PILOT SAID: ↑
Doesn't make it illegal either

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
*I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead*"


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, so do you believe in the Constitution or not?  I want to make sure to hold you to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
Click to expand...


It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.

Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you
> 
> You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:
> 
> "SKULL PILOT SAID: ↑
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> *I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead*"
Click to expand...


So I didn't say he deserved it.  I said I don't care

Thank for admitting that you are a LYING SACK OF SHIT


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
Click to expand...


I never said that.  

I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.


----------



## OODA_Loop

I sometimes carry this in a G42 and have reservations.    This is supposed to be an effective design.   Handgun rounds especially small ones are ineffective man stoppers.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not justifiable.  The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon.  He wasn't even continuing to assault him.  For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life.  Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.
> 
> 
> 
> Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly
> 
> A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has no bearing on the case now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.    If it goes to hearing.     Defense will produce incidents and professional testimony of death due to head injuries from being pushed or falling onto hard surfaces.    That reasonable fear is justification for lethal force under Florida law
Click to expand...


He didn't die and he didn't strike his head.  Your argument falls apart after you recognize that fact.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
Click to expand...


And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make up shit other people say and now you whine that people are doing it to you
> 
> You have no right to complain you lying sack of dog shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:
> 
> "SKULL PILOT SAID: ↑
> Doesn't make it illegal either
> 
> If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
> *I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I didn't say he deserved it.  I said I don't care
> 
> Thank for admitting that you are a LYING SACK OF SHIT
Click to expand...


Yeah and if you don't care, it means the same damn thing, because as I said, you don't care if the punishment for one's actions fits the severity of their actions.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get in the car and drive away
Click to expand...


Getting your family in the car while a psycho is screaming at you over where you parked is not as trivial a task as you present it.

So you advocate incredible discipline and completely ignoring the threat of a guy threatening you and your family.

On the other hand, you go from if you get touched, you can use lethal force.

You're just arguing like a moonbat.

And you don't give a shit at all that the guy staged the whole thing by repeatedly initiating confrontation with people while armed intending to aim to kill.  You're fine with that he planned to kill someone and just didn't know who.  And you're not worried this guy is screaming at your wife and your children are there.

You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one no matter how stupid it is?


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron
Click to expand...


Yes it is... it's called taking it into your own hands.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality supports that disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about armed psychos stops shootings.  Got it.  Thanks for pointing that out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disarming honest citizens?  That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either fuck up or don't.  You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a hint.  The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.
> 
> The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.
> 
> I realize that was very subtle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I told you that you don't know who the honest and dishonest ones until they do something dishonest.  This isn't Minority Report where psychics tell you ahead of time who will commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered.  They identify themselves.  Your law identifies them as the honest ones follow the law and the dishonest ones don't.  Then you've created a situation where the dishonest ones are the only ones armed.  Good job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idiot that murdered this man was a legal gun owner.  You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


WTF?  What does that have to do with that he can't take his gun into a bar.  You really can't follow a conversation, can you?


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it once
> 
> I'm not watching it again
> 
> How about you answer my question?
Click to expand...


I did, you're ignoring my answer.  I specifically told you how I know what his intentions are


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disarming honest citizens?  That's the funny thing, you don't know who is an honest responsible citizen until they either fuck up or don't.  You just argued all these pages that this guy is a murderer and is an irresponsible gun owner... well by your logic there is nothing that could be done about it, because he had lived 50+ years without shooting and killing anyone to this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a hint.  The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.
> 
> The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.
> 
> I realize that was very subtle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I told you that you don't know who the honest and dishonest ones until they do something dishonest.  This isn't Minority Report where psychics tell you ahead of time who will commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered.  They identify themselves.  Your law identifies them as the honest ones follow the law and the dishonest ones don't.  Then you've created a situation where the dishonest ones are the only ones armed.  Good job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idiot that murdered this man was a legal gun owner.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  What does that have to do with that he can't take his gun into a bar.  You really can't follow a conversation, can you?
Click to expand...


What the fuck are you still talking about that?  I said that as an example of how easy it to find out who is actually a responsible gun owner or not.


----------



## jillian

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with it
> 
> The 8th amendment applies to bail and sentences passed by the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get in the car and drive away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting your family in the car while a psycho is screaming at you over where you parked is not as trivial a task as you present it.
> 
> So you advocate incredible discipline and completely ignoring the threat of a guy threatening you and your family.
> 
> On the other hand, you go from if you get touched, you can use lethal force.
> 
> You're just arguing like a moonbat.
> 
> And you don't give a shit at all that the guy staged the whole thing by repeatedly initiating confrontation with people while armed intending to aim to kill.  You're fine with that he planned to kill someone and just didn't know who.  And you're not worried this guy is screaming at your wife and your children are there.
> 
> You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one no matter how stupid it is?
Click to expand...


She was in the car all she had to do was stay in the car or leave

the guy was not in any way a threat to her life just because he was yelling

When I am carrying and I see something like that I remove myself from the situation.  I don't care if some asshole swears at me or calls me names 

I know that because I am armed I am held to a higher standard


----------



## jillian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.


What justified him pulling a gun on someone who wasn’t threatening him?


----------



## Skull Pilot

jillian said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity
Click to expand...

you ignore that the victim of the assault didn't shoot until AFTER he was assaulted

This is not a stand your ground situation


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I was screaming at the guy's wife when he did it, I'd think if he leveled me then backed off like this guy did, he probably was just protecting his wife and wanted me to stop.  If he wanted to kill me for screaming at his wife over where they parked, he'd be unlikely to back off.
> 
> But hey, if I'm this guy, it's what I designed.  I can kill him now.  Particularly since he backed off giving me the chance to get my gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't pretend to know what other people are thinking
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> He didn't die and he didn't strike his head.  Your argument falls apart after you recognize that fact.



The on-scene investigators didn't think so evidenced by lack of arrest.


----------



## OODA_Loop

jillian said:


> And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity



Kindergartens golden rules will keep you happy and hole free.


----------



## Skull Pilot

jillian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> What justified him pulling a gun on someone who wasn’t threatening him?
Click to expand...


He was assaulted by the guy already

Would you maybe think your life was in danger if a guy blindsided you and knocked you to the ground?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is... it's called taking it into your own hands.
Click to expand...

No it's not.


----------



## jillian

OODA_Loop said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindergartens golden rules will keep you happy and hole free.
Click to expand...

That isn’t responsive


----------



## OODA_Loop

OODA_Loop said:


> What justified him pulling a gun on someone who wasn’t threatening him?



He was just attacked and was not convinced the threat had ceased.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
Click to expand...


Lewdog:  "I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime"

BY THE GOVERNMENT.

You said it was a violation of his Constitutional rights that he was shot by another citizen.  That has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

Damn you're stupid


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime.  You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down.  You fucking believe in the Constitution or not.  It's based on the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
Click to expand...


No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.

I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.


----------



## OODA_Loop

jillian said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindergartens golden rules will keep you happy and hole free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t responsive
Click to expand...


Keep your hands to yourself.

Dont assault - don't get shot - don't get dead.

_Ask Treyvon .....ask McGLocklin,...... Mike Brown, etc_


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a hint.  The honest citizens are the ones who follow the law and disarm.
> 
> The psychos who don't disarm and shoot them aren't honest citizens.
> 
> I realize that was very subtle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I told you that you don't know who the honest and dishonest ones until they do something dishonest.  This isn't Minority Report where psychics tell you ahead of time who will commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered.  They identify themselves.  Your law identifies them as the honest ones follow the law and the dishonest ones don't.  Then you've created a situation where the dishonest ones are the only ones armed.  Good job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idiot that murdered this man was a legal gun owner.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  What does that have to do with that he can't take his gun into a bar.  You really can't follow a conversation, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you still talking about that?  I said that as an example of how easy it to find out who is actually a responsible gun owner or not.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it does that as I keep pointing out.  We find out.  The responsible gun owners are the ones you disarmed.  The irresponsible gun owners are the ones who are still armed.

The problem with that situation still isn't dawning on you?  Seriously?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is... it's called taking it into your own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.
Click to expand...




Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


You mean you lied your ass off claiming I said he deserved to be shot

And self defense is not a violation of the 8th amendment
If a person believes his life to be in danger he can shoot


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't die and he didn't strike his head.  Your argument falls apart after you recognize that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The on-scene investigators didn't think so evidenced by lack of arrest.
Click to expand...


Guess what?  None of that matters!

He'll be in jail soon enough.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime"
> 
> BY THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> You said it was a violation of his Constitutional rights that he was shot by another citizen.  That has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
> 
> Damn you're stupid
Click to expand...


You dumbass, I've said this to you several times now as well.  No the 8th Amendment does not protect one person from another person, but they share the SAME PRINCIPLE.  If you think the 8th Amendment is justified and makes sense, you should think the same should take place in other parts of life.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get in the car and drive away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting your family in the car while a psycho is screaming at you over where you parked is not as trivial a task as you present it.
> 
> So you advocate incredible discipline and completely ignoring the threat of a guy threatening you and your family.
> 
> On the other hand, you go from if you get touched, you can use lethal force.
> 
> You're just arguing like a moonbat.
> 
> And you don't give a shit at all that the guy staged the whole thing by repeatedly initiating confrontation with people while armed intending to aim to kill.  You're fine with that he planned to kill someone and just didn't know who.  And you're not worried this guy is screaming at your wife and your children are there.
> 
> You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one no matter how stupid it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in the car all she had to do was stay in the car or leave
> 
> the guy was not in any way a threat to her life just because he was yelling
> 
> When I am carrying and I see something like that I remove myself from the situation.  I don't care if some asshole swears at me or calls me names
> 
> I know that because I am armed I am held to a higher standard
Click to expand...


And yet you're arguing that a gun carrier can initiate a hostile situation while carrying and continue to repeat that scenario until they get to shoot someone


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is... it's called taking it into your own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean you lied your ass off claiming I said he deserved to be shot
> 
> And self defense is not a violation of the 8th amendment
> If a person believes his life to be in danger he can shoot
Click to expand...


You said what you said, and I showed it clear as day.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> What justified him pulling a gun on someone who wasn’t threatening him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was just attacked and was not convinced the threat had ceased.
Click to expand...


Only because he was an idiot did he think that pointing his gun would not be a deterrent.

!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Guess what?  None of that matters!
> 
> He'll be in jail soon enough.



Prior analogous cases do not support this.   Lack of immediate arrest is a hugely indicator.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime"
> 
> BY THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> You said it was a violation of his Constitutional rights that he was shot by another citizen.  That has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
> 
> Damn you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbass, I've said this to you several times now as well.  No the 8th Amendment does not protect ones person from another person, but they share the SAME PRINCIPLE.  If you think the 8th Amendment is justified and makes sense, you should think the same should take place in other parts of life.
Click to expand...


You said that shooting the shover was a violation of the eighth amendment


----------



## jillian

OODA_Loop said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindergartens golden rules will keep you happy and hole free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t responsive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep your hands to yourself.
> 
> Dont assault - don't get shot - don't get dead.
> 
> _Ask Treyvon .....ask McGLocklin,...... Mike Brown, etc_
Click to expand...

The death penalty isn’t appropriate for a misdemeanor assault.
And you don’t get to shoot someone who isn’t a threat. 

Paycho. Thanks for pricing my point


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah protection from the government not other citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime"
> 
> BY THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> You said it was a violation of his Constitutional rights that he was shot by another citizen.  That has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
> 
> Damn you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbass, I've said this to you several times now as well.  No the 8th Amendment does not protect ones person from another person, but they share the SAME PRINCIPLE.  If you think the 8th Amendment is justified and makes sense, you should think the same should take place in other parts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that shooting the shover was a violation of the eighth amendment.  If you want to admit now you were wrong, that's fine.  But don't pretend you didn't say that
Click to expand...


No I did not.  

Show me where I said that.  I said they share the SAME PRINCIPLE.


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
Click to expand...



so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response


----------



## Lewdog

jillian said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindergartens golden rules will keep you happy and hole free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t responsive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep your hands to yourself.
> 
> Dont assault - don't get shot - don't get dead.
> 
> _Ask Treyvon .....ask McGLocklin,...... Mike Brown, etc_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The death penalty isn’t appropriate for an assault.
> And you don’t get to shoot someone who isn’t a threat.
> 
> Paycho. Thanks for pricing my point
Click to expand...


Could you imagine how many people would go out and shoot someone and then when the cops show up, they just say, "He said he was going to kill me and I felt threatened."


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what?  None of that matters!
> 
> He'll be in jail soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior analogous cases do not support this.   Lack of immediate arrest is a hugely indicator.
Click to expand...


Hugely is not a word, dumbass!

You probably have no idea what "analagous" means!

Was Zimmerman arrested immediately?  No.


----------



## OODA_Loop

jillian said:


> And you don’t get to shoot someone who isn’t a threat.
> 
> Paycho. Thanks for pricing my point



Treyvon attacked Zimmerman.

McGLocklin attacked this guy.

Mike Brown attacked the police officer in his car.

Absent the attacks all three would not have been shot.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact, blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.  Stop diverting.  How do you get out that the issue is ... whites being racist?
> 
> You're just a typical Democrat race whore.  Blacks aren't racist because only whites are racist.  You know that because you're not a racist ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?
> 
> Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?
> 
> Now those are REAL statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
Click to expand...


Lewdog:  "I'm not a Democrat"

You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf.  No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties.  You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that.  Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference between yelling and assault.
> And as I said earlier all involved are idiots.
> From the chick on down to the shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.
> 
> And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what the guy was saying.
> Battery,what the black guy did is assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what the law is: there is no difference between yelling and assault – ‘big’ or otherwise.
> 
> Yelling can be perceived as a threat, justifying the use of deadly force as self-defense; physical contact (battery) is not required to justify the use of deadly force in Florida.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yelling at someone is not assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not unless you're threatening them, which he was.  It was a full grown man and a woman who was yelling at her over where she parked.  Her boyfriend had every right and responsibility to protect her
Click to expand...


  So you were there?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Could you imagine how many people would go out and shoot someone and then when the cops show up, they just say, "He said he was going to kill me and I felt threatened."



That is an insult to law enforcement.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don’t get to shoot someone who isn’t a threat.
> 
> Paycho. Thanks for pricing my point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treyvon attacked Zimmerman.
> 
> McGLocklin attacked this guy.
> 
> Mike Brown attacked the police officer in his car.
> 
> Absent the attacks all three would not have been shot.
Click to expand...


You have no idea if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.  Only two people know what happened between the two, and one is dead and can't say anything.  The other, Zimmerman has gotten arrested how many times since then for losing his cool and making threats?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...that would be murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was murder.  That's my point.  I carry, and I badly want to avoid ever using my gun.  I don't view life as a video game where the goal is to kill someone and have it legally justified so you don't get in trouble.  The guilt that I staged the shooting would haunt me forever.  That's what awaits this guy if he has a soul.
> 
> When he carried and repeatedly initiated aggression, a shooting was going to happen.  Yes, it was murder
Click to expand...


  Thats not what I said.
Had the guy came out of the store and shot the guy arguing with his wife that would have been murder.


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get in the car and drive away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting your family in the car while a psycho is screaming at you over where you parked is not as trivial a task as you present it.
> 
> So you advocate incredible discipline and completely ignoring the threat of a guy threatening you and your family.
> 
> On the other hand, you go from if you get touched, you can use lethal force.
> 
> You're just arguing like a moonbat.
> 
> And you don't give a shit at all that the guy staged the whole thing by repeatedly initiating confrontation with people while armed intending to aim to kill.  You're fine with that he planned to kill someone and just didn't know who.  And you're not worried this guy is screaming at your wife and your children are there.
> 
> You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one no matter how stupid it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in the car all she had to do was stay in the car or leave
> 
> the guy was not in any way a threat to her life just because he was yelling
> 
> When I am carrying and I see something like that I remove myself from the situation.  I don't care if some asshole swears at me or calls me names
> 
> I know that because I am armed I am held to a higher standard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you're arguing that a gun carrier can initiate a hostile situation while carrying and continue to repeat that scenario until they get to shoot someone
Click to expand...


I don't know what he did or didn't do yet.

I do know he didn't pull his gun until AFTER he was assaulted


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics say that.  Murder statistics especially when it comes to who committed them, are about the least reliable statistic there is.  Now you've seemed to have some reasoning and common sense in this thread, so I'm sure you can figure out why murder statistics when it comes to who committed the murders are hard to figure out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?
> 
> Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?
> 
> Now those are REAL statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I'm not a Democrat"
> 
> You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf.  No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties.  You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that.  Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are
Click to expand...


Race whoring?  Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring.  I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them.  I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was.  Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?   You don't even know what the Constitution is, Democrats never do.  The Constitution is a limitation on government.  Where the fuck do you get that the bill of rights are powers of government?  That's completely moronic.
> 
> Murder is State law, not Federal law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.

For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shooting is self defense is not a punishment for a crime you moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is... it's called taking it into your own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean you lied your ass off claiming I said he deserved to be shot
> 
> And self defense is not a violation of the 8th amendment
> If a person believes his life to be in danger he can shoot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said what you said, and I showed it clear as day.
Click to expand...


And you continually lied about what I said until you posted the quote and then actually proved that you are a lying sack of shit


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets not forget about the children in the car. What if he would have been off balance when he made one of those shots and hit one of those kids?
> 
> Does shit for brains Florida law still protect him?
> 
> The bottom line here is a man defending a woman and children is dead, and Florida law protects the shooter.
> 
> The shooter is not only a coward, but in the eyes of those children, whom he has now terrorized for life, is a murderer, but in any grown ass man with a pair is a coward and a murderer, and in the eyes of God is a murderer.
> 
> In the eyes of Florida is a hero. But then lets consider who we're discussing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree on your accusations about Florida law.  This isn't a stand your ground situation.  This was a staged situation by the shooter.  It was murder
Click to expand...


  Like I've said a dozen times in this thread....
The guy was justified in shooting his assailant but I dont believe he should have.
   Was the guy an asshole? Sure he was but the law is on his side.


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens.  That is NOT what the Constitution is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is.  I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime"
> 
> BY THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> You said it was a violation of his Constitutional rights that he was shot by another citizen.  That has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
> 
> Damn you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbass, I've said this to you several times now as well.  No the 8th Amendment does not protect ones person from another person, but they share the SAME PRINCIPLE.  If you think the 8th Amendment is justified and makes sense, you should think the same should take place in other parts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that shooting the shover was a violation of the eighth amendment.  If you want to admit now you were wrong, that's fine.  But don't pretend you didn't say that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I did not.
> 
> Show me where I said that.  I said they share the SAME PRINCIPLE.
Click to expand...


And that's ridiculous too.  There is no principle that you have Constitutional rights ... from other citizens ...

You don't


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Hugely is not a word, dumbass!
> 
> .



I used ii as a _Trumpism_.....but nevertheless to prove your lack of depth to the forum....._bigly   _

*hugely *(ˈhjuːdʒlɪ) _adv_

very much; enormously

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
hugely


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
Click to expand...


Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.

And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."

I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.

What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.
> 
> And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what the guy was saying.
> Battery,what the black guy did is assault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what the law is: there is no difference between yelling and assault – ‘big’ or otherwise.
> 
> Yelling can be perceived as a threat, justifying the use of deadly force as self-defense; physical contact (battery) is not required to justify the use of deadly force in Florida.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yelling at someone is not assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not unless you're threatening them, which he was.  It was a full grown man and a woman who was yelling at her over where she parked.  Her boyfriend had every right and responsibility to protect her
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were there?
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video, what happens?


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
Click to expand...


What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> You have no idea if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.



The evidence, injuries and eye witness testimony supported this.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...that would be murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was murder.  That's my point.  I carry, and I badly want to avoid ever using my gun.  I don't view life as a video game where the goal is to kill someone and have it legally justified so you don't get in trouble.  The guilt that I staged the shooting would haunt me forever.  That's what awaits this guy if he has a soul.
> 
> When he carried and repeatedly initiated aggression, a shooting was going to happen.  Yes, it was murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not what I said.
> Had the guy came out of the store and shot the guy arguing with his wife that would have been murder.
Click to expand...


Cool.  Now you have anything on my point other than you don't get it?  Go to the one minute mark of the video and listen to the next 20 seconds or so.  The store owner will explain it to you


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?  I never said murder was a federal law.  However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
Click to expand...


Firing an employee isn't the same thing...


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> 
> 
> You get in the car and drive away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting your family in the car while a psycho is screaming at you over where you parked is not as trivial a task as you present it.
> 
> So you advocate incredible discipline and completely ignoring the threat of a guy threatening you and your family.
> 
> On the other hand, you go from if you get touched, you can use lethal force.
> 
> You're just arguing like a moonbat.
> 
> And you don't give a shit at all that the guy staged the whole thing by repeatedly initiating confrontation with people while armed intending to aim to kill.  You're fine with that he planned to kill someone and just didn't know who.  And you're not worried this guy is screaming at your wife and your children are there.
> 
> You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one no matter how stupid it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in the car all she had to do was stay in the car or leave
> 
> the guy was not in any way a threat to her life just because he was yelling
> 
> When I am carrying and I see something like that I remove myself from the situation.  I don't care if some asshole swears at me or calls me names
> 
> I know that because I am armed I am held to a higher standard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you're arguing that a gun carrier can initiate a hostile situation while carrying and continue to repeat that scenario until they get to shoot someone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what he did or didn't do yet.
> 
> I do know he didn't pull his gun until AFTER he was assaulted
Click to expand...


In a situation he repeatedly staged


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites.  And I called you a race whore.  Nailed it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?
> 
> Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?
> 
> Now those are REAL statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I'm not a Democrat"
> 
> You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf.  No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties.  You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that.  Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race whoring?  Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring.  I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them.  I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was.  Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.
Click to expand...


You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese.  I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you.  But only from whites.  It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party.  And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence, injuries and eye witness testimony supported this.
Click to expand...


No it was inconclusive.  However when it comes to a murder conviction it takes Beyond a Reasonable doubt.  That means the jury has to be 100% convinced in order to convict.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hugely is not a word, dumbass!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used ii as a _Trumpism_.....but nevertheless to prove your lack of depth to the forum....._bigly   _
> 
> *hugely *(ˈhjuːdʒlɪ) _adv_
> 
> very much; enormously
> 
> Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
> hugely
Click to expand...


You still did not use it correctly!  Nevertheless, you are still a dumbass!


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets not forget about the children in the car. What if he would have been off balance when he made one of those shots and hit one of those kids?
> 
> Does shit for brains Florida law still protect him?
> 
> The bottom line here is a man defending a woman and children is dead, and Florida law protects the shooter.
> 
> The shooter is not only a coward, but in the eyes of those children, whom he has now terrorized for life, is a murderer, but in any grown ass man with a pair is a coward and a murderer, and in the eyes of God is a murderer.
> 
> In the eyes of Florida is a hero. But then lets consider who we're discussing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree on your accusations about Florida law.  This isn't a stand your ground situation.  This was a staged situation by the shooter.  It was murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I've said a dozen times in this thread....
> The guy was justified in shooting his assailant but I dont believe he should have.
> Was the guy an asshole? Sure he was but the law is on his side.
Click to expand...


While iffy because he didn't appear to be in any danger when he shot the guy, I could see that as gray if the shooter had not been repeating the scenario he repeatedly staged where he initiated hostility.  Given that, it's murder


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct.  Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year?  And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?
> 
> Guess what?  If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer.  Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?
> 
> Now those are REAL statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I'm not a Democrat"
> 
> You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf.  No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties.  You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that.  Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race whoring?  Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring.  I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them.  I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was.  Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese.  I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you.  But only from whites.  It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party.  And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred
Click to expand...


I don't "want" anyone to be racist.  The fact is, racism is still prevalent.  If you think this country is as non-racist as it has ever been in human history, you need to start reading REAL educational books that rely on REAL statistics and REAL studies.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
Click to expand...


   So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
   I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
   But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
    For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
   I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.

  Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
    All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam. 
   I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.

   Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.


----------



## jillian

Lewdog said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindergartens golden rules will keep you happy and hole free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t responsive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep your hands to yourself.
> 
> Dont assault - don't get shot - don't get dead.
> 
> _Ask Treyvon .....ask McGLocklin,...... Mike Brown, etc_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The death penalty isn’t appropriate for an assault.
> And you don’t get to shoot someone who isn’t a threat.
> 
> Paycho. Thanks for pricing my point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you imagine how many people would go out and shoot someone and then when the cops show up, they just say, "He said he was going to kill me and I felt threatened."
Click to expand...


that's exactly right.

and we've seen it


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
Click to expand...


I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who threatened anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video
Click to expand...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is.  The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power.  The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.  That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.
> 
> How do you not know what the Constitution is?  That's pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firing an employee isn't the same thing...
Click to expand...


That could mean several different things.  But no, firing employees for what they say has nothing to do with the Constitution.  If you get that, you're getting it now


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

jillian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> What justified him pulling a gun on someone who wasn’t threatening him?
Click to expand...


  Getting assaulted?


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I'm not a Democrat"
> 
> You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf.  No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties.  You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that.  Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race whoring?  Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring.  I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them.  I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was.  Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese.  I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you.  But only from whites.  It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party.  And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "want" anyone to be racist.  The fact is, racism is still prevalent.  If you think this country is as non-racist as it has ever been in human history, you need to start reading REAL educational books that rely on REAL statistics and REAL studies.
Click to expand...


If you see the United States today all as Alabama in the 50s, and you only see racism coming from whites, then yeah, you want us to be racists.

It's ironic you're criticizing a few people in the gun thread for extreme overreaction, then when the situation goes to race you hysterically overreact.  Sure, racism exists.  But that it's gotten worse instead of better and whites are the problem is just stupid, which is what you and the Democrat party are


----------



## OODA_Loop

jillian said:


> that's exactly right.
> 
> and we've seen it



Which case ?   Thanks.


----------



## jillian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already a thread on this.
> The guy was justified but I think he went to far.
> 
> 
> 
> What justified him pulling a gun on someone who wasn’t threatening him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting assaulted?
Click to expand...


the death penalty isn't a potential sentence for a misdemeanor. and the assailant was no longer a danger.

try again... this time with actual thought.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
Click to expand...


  At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.


----------



## jillian

OODA_Loop said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's exactly right.
> 
> and we've seen it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which case ?   Thanks.
Click to expand...


hahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
Click to expand...


Strawman



HereWeGoAgain said:


> I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
> But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
> For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
> I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.
> 
> Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
> Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
> All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
> I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.
> 
> Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
> Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.



And yet you completely didn't address my point that the shooter staged a scenario, initiated the aggression and repeated it until he got the shooting he wanted.  Nothing you said addresses any part of my point


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You keep parroting the same question and ignoring the answer, then you complain you keep getting the same answer, LOL


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
> But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
> For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
> I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.
> 
> Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
> Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
> All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
> I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.
> 
> Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
> Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you completely didn't address my point that the shooter staged a scenario, initiated the aggression and repeated it until he got the shooting he wanted.  Nothing you said addresses any part of my point
Click to expand...


  Funny...he's never shot someone before.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.
Click to expand...


And what does the store clerk say?


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
> But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
> For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
> I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.
> 
> Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
> Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
> All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
> I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.
> 
> Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
> Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you completely didn't address my point that the shooter staged a scenario, initiated the aggression and repeated it until he got the shooting he wanted.  Nothing you said addresses any part of my point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny...he's never shot someone before.
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does the store clerk say?
Click to expand...


  What does that matter?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
> But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
> For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
> I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.
> 
> Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
> Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
> All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
> I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.
> 
> Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
> Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you completely didn't address my point that the shooter staged a scenario, initiated the aggression and repeated it until he got the shooting he wanted.  Nothing you said addresses any part of my point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny...he's never shot someone before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


   So he just decided out of the blue to shoot someone?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was just yelling?
> 
> I would have ignored him
> 
> If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
> But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
> For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
> I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.
> 
> Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
> Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
> All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
> I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.
> 
> Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
> Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you completely didn't address my point that the shooter staged a scenario, initiated the aggression and repeated it until he got the shooting he wanted.  Nothing you said addresses any part of my point
Click to expand...


  I find it interesting that you start shit with someone while your wife and kids were present.
   Real fuken smart.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit man.  I NEVER SAID THAT.  The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment.  It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
Click to expand...


I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  First, I'm not a Democrat.  Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.
> 
> I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I'm not a Democrat"
> 
> You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf.  No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties.  You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that.  Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race whoring?  Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring.  I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them.  I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was.  Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese.  I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you.  But only from whites.  It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party.  And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "want" anyone to be racist.  The fact is, racism is still prevalent.  If you think this country is as non-racist as it has ever been in human history, you need to start reading REAL educational books that rely on REAL statistics and REAL studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you see the United States today all as Alabama in the 50s, and you only see racism coming from whites, then yeah, you want us to be racists.
> 
> It's ironic you're criticizing a few people in the gun thread for extreme overreaction, then when the situation goes to race you hysterically overreact.  Sure, racism exists.  But that it's gotten worse instead of better and whites are the problem is just stupid, which is what you and the Democrat party are
Click to expand...


When did I say there is only racism coming from whites?  Again, if you REALLY want to learn how wrong some of your views about racism being the best it has ever been, I'll loan you some top selling books from VERY respectable authors.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.



Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.
Click to expand...


Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.



He was in range to finish the attack and square to the shooter.


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
Click to expand...



obviously it is not clear  

it is only "clear" in your clouded mind 

you have offered no evidence none what so ever 

that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk


----------



## jon_berzerk

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the beauty of concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



exactly


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concealed permit holder right ??  Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
Click to expand...

If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.

I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?


----------



## beagle9

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obviously it is not clear
> 
> it is only "clear" in your clouded mind
> 
> you have offered no evidence none what so ever
> 
> that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk
Click to expand...

Doesn't the video coupled with live testimony on scene tell you anything ??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
Click to expand...


   How is he the prime witness? He didnt see anything.
I'd say the wife or whatever she is would be considered the prime witness.


----------



## Coyote

miketx said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
Click to expand...

He backed away when the gun was drawn.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already admitted that you and your wife would both have felt threatened if it had been you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
Click to expand...

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is he the prime witness? He didnt see anything.
> I'd say the wife or whatever she is would be considered the prime witness.
Click to expand...

Not prime your right, but still elliminating the witness who knew what he did probably served two purposes. It got rid of who he knew would be compassionate about barbequing his ace in court, and placing fear in the woman and her children who would talk against him.  Now he has this woman and her children in fear for their lives.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
Click to expand...


  It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.


----------



## Coyote

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
Click to expand...

Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no. Nobodys ever been convicted of attempted murder for pushing someone down. If a push results in a death its also not murder, its involuntary manslaughter by virtue of a push NOT being considered lethal in intent.
> 
> Give it a fuckin break...an obsessive compulsive threatening to shoot people over a damn parking spot being pushed away from a woman and children is what youre defending as cause for murder in spite of the pusher doing what any grown man should do to a nutbag approaching his family
> 
> 
> you perhaps dont belong owning deadly weaponry, either. life is more valuable than a killing in retaliation for a push.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Perfectly stated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im pro gun rights but the mentality of anyone thinking this is OK makes me question being pretty pro regulation...I dunno. Its def. a downer that people are so irrational like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the mind that you don't assault people
> I don't care that people who assault others get dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just the hero who would let psychotic men scream at your wife in parking lots.  I actually doubt your story you would do that.
> 
> The psycho who murdered him staged the event and repeated it until he got what he wanted, to kill someone.  If you repeatedly yell at people for where they park, someone will respond.  No responsible gun owner would ever condone a trap that is certain to end in a shooting.  Then there's you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have left the parking lot if it were me.  My wife would have done the same.
> See I am a CCW permit holder and I make it a point not to escalate situations.
Click to expand...

To bad that idiot shooter wasn't trained by you.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
Click to expand...



That is what you see from the video..... what actually matters is what the guy on the ground was able to see after he was violently attacked.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
Click to expand...



Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is he the prime witness? He didnt see anything.
> I'd say the wife or whatever she is would be considered the prime witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not prime your right, but still elliminating the witness who knew what he did probably served two purposes. It got rid of who he knew would be compassionate about barbequing his ace in court, and placing fear in the woman and her children who would talk against him.  Now he has this women and children in fear for their lives.
Click to expand...


  Uuuuh.....the video pretty much shows what happened.
  Girl and kids sitting in car. Weird dude yelling from 5 or 6 feet away.
    Guy comes out of store and jacks the dude blindside.

   Getting rid of what witness?


----------



## beagle9

Coyote said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought too..


----------



## 2aguy

It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is he the prime witness? He didnt see anything.
> I'd say the wife or whatever she is would be considered the prime witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not prime your right, but still elliminating the witness who knew what he did probably served two purposes. It got rid of who he knew would be compassionate about barbequing his ace in court, and placing fear in the woman and her children who would talk against him.  Now he has this women and children in fear for their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uuuuh.....the video pretty much shows what happened.
> Girl and kids sitting in car. Weird dude yelling from 5 or 6 feet away.
> Guy comes out of store and jacks the dude blindside.
> 
> Getting rid of what witness?
Click to expand...

The guy shot wasn't a witness ?


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
Click to expand...

Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
Click to expand...


  Have you read this thread from the beginning?
Somehow I doubt it since this is your first foray into the discusion and your response doesnt fit with my narrative.


----------



## beagle9

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
Click to expand...

He started it, big difference..


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> 
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
Click to expand...



No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...


Would you turn your back on a gun?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> 
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is he the prime witness? He didnt see anything.
> I'd say the wife or whatever she is would be considered the prime witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not prime your right, but still elliminating the witness who knew what he did probably served two purposes. It got rid of who he knew would be compassionate about barbequing his ace in court, and placing fear in the woman and her children who would talk against him.  Now he has this women and children in fear for their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uuuuh.....the video pretty much shows what happened.
> Girl and kids sitting in car. Weird dude yelling from 5 or 6 feet away.
> Guy comes out of store and jacks the dude blindside.
> 
> Getting rid of what witness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy shot wasn't a witness ?
Click to expand...


  Witness to what?
He ran out the door and slammed the dude.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
Click to expand...



I wouldn't push someone who was arguing over a parking space.  Then I would put my hands up to show I wasn't a threat.


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read this thread from the beginning?
> Somehow I doubt it since this is your first foray into the discusion and your response doesnt fit with my narrative.
Click to expand...

Anyone entering the discussion is viewing the video and commenting. Not sure why they need to find a theme or narrative here.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....
Click to expand...

He has the gun.  The attacker stopped.  No reason to go further.


----------



## beagle9

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't push someone who was arguing over a parking space.  Then I would put my hands up to show I wasn't a threat.
Click to expand...

If your family was involved, you don't know what you might do.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't push someone who was arguing over a parking space.  Then I would put my hands up to show I wasn't a threat.
Click to expand...


  Ya gotta love the people who think starting shit with some guy while you're surrounded by your wife and kids is a good idea.
   You get your family away as fast as you can.
 No reason to expose them to potential violence or gun play.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> 
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has the gun.  The attacker stopped.  No reason to go further.
Click to expand...



And if you studied self defense you would know that it isn't that simple after you have been violently attacked.... you ability to perceive time and distance and your visual awareness are reduced.......  ever been in a car accident?  The same effect as the attack.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
Click to expand...

If I was retreating post haste


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is he the prime witness? He didnt see anything.
> I'd say the wife or whatever she is would be considered the prime witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not prime your right, but still elliminating the witness who knew what he did probably served two purposes. It got rid of who he knew would be compassionate about barbequing his ace in court, and placing fear in the woman and her children who would talk against him.  Now he has this women and children in fear for their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uuuuh.....the video pretty much shows what happened.
> Girl and kids sitting in car. Weird dude yelling from 5 or 6 feet away.
> Guy comes out of store and jacks the dude blindside.
> 
> Getting rid of what witness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy shot wasn't a witness ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Witness to what?
> He ran out the door and slammed the dude.
Click to expand...

He saw quickly the man badgering his girlfriend, wife or who ever she was, and you didn't see that ?? Hmmm.


----------



## 2aguy

beagle9 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't push someone who was arguing over a parking space.  Then I would put my hands up to show I wasn't a threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your family was involved, you don't know what you might do.
Click to expand...



yes....I do.... I would not walk up to another person and shove them violently to the ground.  This attacker obviously has a history of violence... normal people don't go straight to the physical assault in public, in a verbal altercation.....

Notice that they haven't talked about the attackers background or history?   The same way they hid trayvon martin's history and the gentle giant's history....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't get a death penalty, he got shot for attacking a man with a gun. He got what he deserved.
> 
> 
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read this thread from the beginning?
> Somehow I doubt it since this is your first foray into the discusion and your response doesnt fit with my narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone entering the discussion is viewing the video and commenting. Not sure why they need to find a theme or narrative here.
Click to expand...


   If Coyote is going to comment on my position on the subject the only way she can be partial is to know my true position on the matter.
  She skipped all that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is he the prime witness? He didnt see anything.
> I'd say the wife or whatever she is would be considered the prime witness.
> 
> 
> 
> Not prime your right, but still elliminating the witness who knew what he did probably served two purposes. It got rid of who he knew would be compassionate about barbequing his ace in court, and placing fear in the woman and her children who would talk against him.  Now he has this women and children in fear for their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uuuuh.....the video pretty much shows what happened.
> Girl and kids sitting in car. Weird dude yelling from 5 or 6 feet away.
> Guy comes out of store and jacks the dude blindside.
> 
> Getting rid of what witness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy shot wasn't a witness ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Witness to what?
> He ran out the door and slammed the dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He saw quickly the man badgering his girlfriend, wife or who ever she was, and you didn't see that ?? Hmmm.
Click to expand...


    He had no idea what was said before he attacked the dude.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has the gun.  The attacker stopped.  No reason to go further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if you studied self defense you would know that it isn't that simple after you have been violently attacked.... you ability to perceive time and distance and your visual awareness are reduced.......  ever been in a car accident?  The same effect as the attack.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that when some has a gun then, they are far to quick to use it.  The assaulter was unarmed. It was a public place with other people around.  He started the confrontation. The video showed good distance between them.

That man should not have been killed.


----------



## 2aguy

Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.


----------



## Pogo

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:



Whelp --- once again this is what gun fetishism and its psycho companion the idea that the answer to every situation is to shoot at it, leads to.  As if we hadn't figured it out eons ago.


----------



## Coyote

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read this thread from the beginning?
> Somehow I doubt it since this is your first foray into the discusion and your response doesnt fit with my narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone entering the discussion is viewing the video and commenting. Not sure why they need to find a theme or narrative here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Coyote is going to comment on my position on the subject the only way she can be partial is to know my true position on the matter.
> She skipped all that.
Click to expand...

I viewed the video, did not all 65 pages of the thread.


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was retreating post haste
Click to expand...

Had a rogue cop at night pull a gun on me by mistake. I never turned my back on him. I walked backwards with my hands up towards my vehicle, and I never turned my back to him. May not have been right, but it's what I did.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has the gun.  The attacker stopped.  No reason to go further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if you studied self defense you would know that it isn't that simple after you have been violently attacked.... you ability to perceive time and distance and your visual awareness are reduced.......  ever been in a car accident?  The same effect as the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me that when some has a gun then, they are far to quick to use it.  The assaulter was unarmed. It was a public place with other people around.  He started the confrontation. The video showed good distance between them.
> 
> That man should not have been killed.
Click to expand...



The victim who was pushed did not start the physical assault.....he was attacked by the black guy.....and the black guy kept moving forward right after the push and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out.

The video doesn't show the distance between them since it is on the corner of the store, you can't tell how close they actually were....that is the problem with making this judgement from the comfort of your home and not from the ground after being violently attacked.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.


He is backing up.  You can clearly see it.


----------



## 2aguy

beagle9 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was retreating post haste
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had a rogue cop at night pull a gun on me by mistake. I never turned my back on him. I walked backwards with my hands up towards my vehicle, and I never turned my back to him. May not have been right, but it's what I did.
Click to expand...



Notice the key words?  Hands up... the universal gesture of non violent intent, that the attacker did not do after attacking the victim.


----------



## beagle9

Pogo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whelp --- once again this is what gun fetishism and its psycho companion the idea that the answer to every situation is to shoot at it, leads to.  As if we hadn't figured it out eons ago.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with millions of responsible gun owners, so don't even go there with the anti-gun bullcrap.


----------



## Coyote

OODA_Loop said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was retreating post haste
Click to expand...

Not me...I would want to see what he was going to do and try to diffuse the situation.


----------



## OODA_Loop

beagle9 said:


> Had a rogue cop at night pull a gun on me by mistake. I never turned my back on him. I walked backwards with my hands up towards my vehicle, and I never turned my back to him. May not have been right, but it's what I did.


 Did you just assault him and he shot you in the chest?


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is backing up.  You can clearly see it.
Click to expand...



Not afte the initial push.....and by the time he is backing up the guy is already on the ground.... you don't understand how adrenaline affects the body during an attack... you don't understand that you don't know how close they actually were because you are watching the video, the victim is seeing the attacker from the disadvantage of being on the ground after a violent impact with the ground.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was retreating post haste
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had a rogue cop at night pull a gun on me by mistake. I never turned my back on him. I walked backwards with my hands up towards my vehicle, and I never turned my back to him. May not have been right, but it's what I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the key words?  Hands up... the universal gesture of non violent intent, that the attacker did not do after attacking the victim.
Click to expand...

He backed away.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Coyote said:


> Not me...I would want to see what he was going to do and try to diffuse the situation.


 So you attacked him and he shot you in the chest and you’re not going to use your last breaths to get to help. No.  You are going to try and diffuse it?


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whelp --- once again this is what gun fetishism and its psycho companion the idea that the answer to every situation is to shoot at it, leads to.  As if we hadn't figured it out eons ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with millions of responsible gun owners, so don't even go there with the anti-gun bullcrap.
Click to expand...


Ummmm yyyyeah.  A shooting has nothing to do with guns.  AAAlllll righty then.


----------



## Lewdog

2aguy said:


> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.




What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
> Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked.  Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another mind reader
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark on the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no audio on the video in the parking lot so you don't know what the guy was saying
Click to expand...

Can only go on the witness testimony I guess, but if no case is brought then no one will ever know.


----------



## 2aguy

Lewdog said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.
Click to expand...



The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...

Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....

You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## beagle9

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whelp --- once again this is what gun fetishism and its psycho companion the idea that the answer to every situation is to shoot at it, leads to.  As if we hadn't figured it out eons ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with millions of responsible gun owners, so don't even go there with the anti-gun bullcrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummmm yyyyeah.  A shooting has nothing to do with guns.  AAAlllll righty then.
Click to expand...

Has to do with guns sure, but not in the way you want to go with it. We are tired of the bullcrap where every incident is somehow tied in with the citizens right to bear arms on whole.  It's time to go after the criminals and their guns, and yes even these weirdo's that somehow get through the wire, and leave the level minded good armed citizens alone. We need good armed citizens, because the reaction times of the police isn't sufficient enough.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was retreating post haste
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had a rogue cop at night pull a gun on me by mistake. I never turned my back on him. I walked backwards with my hands up towards my vehicle, and I never turned my back to him. May not have been right, but it's what I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the key words?  Hands up... the universal gesture of non violent intent, that the attacker did not do after attacking the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He backed away.
Click to expand...


  He shouldnt have done a damn thing.
If it were my family I would have removed them from the confrontation as fast as I could.
    No good can come from gun play with your family around.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
Click to expand...

You don't get it.

Shooting to protect your own safety is not punishment for a crime


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
Click to expand...

He certainly was in range

You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?

How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?
> 
> An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however.  And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.
> 
> If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked?  You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't yell at anyone
> 
> but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threatening people is a crime.
> 
> So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.
> 
> Again with the stupid argument
> 
> Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation
> 
> Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.
> 
> That's totally idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know he was threatening anyone
> 
> There was no audio
> 
> Look no matter how you slice it the guy yelling was assaulted by the much larger guy
> 
> Would you feel your life might be in danger if a guy who was much bigger than you blindsided you and knocked you on your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was knocked on my ace, and I pulled my piece that made the attacker stop and back up therefore showing me that it was over, then knowing me I wouldn't have shot the guy.
> 
> I would have held him there until the police arrived, but this cat I think knowing that he was in the wrong "killed" his prime witness before the cops got there. See how that worked ?? Dead guy's cant talk can they ?
Click to expand...


Good for you
But that has nothing to do with what the guy who was assaulted by a much larger man might have been thinking


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the threat has not risen to a level requiring lethal force absent hands on or brandishing a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
Click to expand...


Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.



Um, no.  

I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder. 

The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.
> 
> The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.
Click to expand...


And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises



Yeah, because the cops would have gotten right on that.


----------



## SavannahMann

This is a bad case to hang your SYG hat on. First, the shooter was according to the news reports, notorious for causing problems at the store. Because you have a gun does not make you a cop, nor allow you to enforce the law as you see it. The gun is intended for self protection, but it is not a license to instigate situations where you are in danger. 

I carry, and when I am, I do not shout at people over parking violations. I do not threaten people as this individual is purported to have done. If you are doing those things, threatening to shoot people over parking violations, then SYG goes out the window. It was at a minimum manslaughter. Again, I am a member of the NRA, and ACLU, and I do not believe this fool acted in anything approaching a defensible manner.


----------



## OODA_Loop

SavannahMann said:


> It was at a minimum manslaughter. Again, I am a member of the NRA, and ACLU, and I do not believe this fool acted in anything approaching a defensible manner.



 The investigating detectives didn't arrest.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JoeB131 said:


> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.



Not according to the police.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does the store clerk say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that matter?
Click to expand...


Why does it matter that the store clerk answers your question?

Because he answers your question


----------



## SavannahMann

OODA_Loop said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was at a minimum manslaughter. Again, I am a member of the NRA, and ACLU, and I do not believe this fool acted in anything approaching a defensible manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The investigating detectives didn't arrest.
Click to expand...


They should have. Too many witnesses all say that this guy causes problems at the store. If he threatened to shoot someone before, then he was looking for trouble. He found it. He should get it.


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
> But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
> For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
> I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.
> 
> Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
> Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
> All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
> I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.
> 
> Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
> Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you completely didn't address my point that the shooter staged a scenario, initiated the aggression and repeated it until he got the shooting he wanted.  Nothing you said addresses any part of my point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny...he's never shot someone before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he just decided out of the blue to shoot someone?
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video.  The store clerk explains it to you


----------



## kaz

HereWeGoAgain said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him.  I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?
> 
> I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  I haven't either, and hope I never will be.
> 
> But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
> But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
> For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
> I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.
> 
> Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
> Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
> All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
> I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.
> 
> Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
> Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you completely didn't address my point that the shooter staged a scenario, initiated the aggression and repeated it until he got the shooting he wanted.  Nothing you said addresses any part of my point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that you start shit with someone while your wife and kids were present.
> Real fuken smart.
Click to expand...


OK, we're done.  Now you're just flat out lying


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but that isn't the point you made.  You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot.  The government did not shoot him.  That's just stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
Click to expand...


Yes, you brought it up for a specific reason.  You're full of shit.  The Constitution doesn't dictate interactions between citizens and it doesn't empower the Federal government to enforce it's own limits on citizens.  It just doesn't.  You brought up the Constitution in a way that demonstrated that you have zero grasp of what the Constitution even is.  It limits the power of government.  Period


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does the store clerk say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter that the store clerk answers your question?
> 
> Because he answers your question
Click to expand...


still he offered no evidence such as you that he "wanted to kill " someone 

face it your opinion is clouded 

and saying something like certainly isnt evidence


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.
> 
> The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.
Click to expand...



It doesn't matter what the victim did in the past, in this attack he was the one physically assaulted ......


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog:  "I'm not a Democrat"
> 
> You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf.  No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties.  You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that.  Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race whoring?  Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring.  I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them.  I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was.  Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese.  I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you.  But only from whites.  It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party.  And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "want" anyone to be racist.  The fact is, racism is still prevalent.  If you think this country is as non-racist as it has ever been in human history, you need to start reading REAL educational books that rely on REAL statistics and REAL studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you see the United States today all as Alabama in the 50s, and you only see racism coming from whites, then yeah, you want us to be racists.
> 
> It's ironic you're criticizing a few people in the gun thread for extreme overreaction, then when the situation goes to race you hysterically overreact.  Sure, racism exists.  But that it's gotten worse instead of better and whites are the problem is just stupid, which is what you and the Democrat party are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say there is only racism coming from whites?  Again, if you REALLY want to learn how wrong some of your views about racism being the best it has ever been, I'll loan you some top selling books from VERY respectable authors.
Click to expand...


I asked you if blacks were racist in your race whoring campaign too or just whites and you declined to answer the question.

It's the Democrat party campaign to pull this country apart because if you can't rule it, you will destroy it.  Your campaign to claim Trump and Republicans are racist is destroying the country and harming blacks by telling them to be bitter and angry and attacking most whites who aren't racist for being racist anyway.

But hey, again, if you can't rule the country, you'll ensure there's nothing left.  One of the few Democrat programs that actually works as designed.  Nice job on that.

But it's our fault, right?  You gave us the choice of succumbing to your will or being destroyed and we picked being destroyed.  We made the choice, right?  Not you ...


----------



## 2aguy

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was in range
> 
> You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?
> 
> How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?
Click to expand...



We don't even know what the actual distance was, we only have the video from the far corner of the store from a weird angle.....they don't understand that video compresses distance....


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obviously it is not clear
> 
> it is only "clear" in your clouded mind
> 
> you have offered no evidence none what so ever
> 
> that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk
Click to expand...


No evidence?  You're full of shit.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds or so.  The store clerk explains it to you


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> still have not proved that yet have ya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obviously it is not clear
> 
> it is only "clear" in your clouded mind
> 
> you have offered no evidence none what so ever
> 
> that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence?  You're full of shit.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds or so.  The store clerk explains it to you
Click to expand...



you still have not offered any evidence of such


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does the store clerk say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter that the store clerk answers your question?
> 
> Because he answers your question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still he offered no evidence such as you that he "wanted to kill " someone
> 
> face it your opinion is clouded
> 
> and saying something like certainly isnt evidence
Click to expand...


Look dude, my argument is clear.  If you want to progress the argument, then respond to my point.  It's clear if you have an IQ of at least 80 or so.  But you like the other moonbats who think screaming at women in parking lots over where they parked isn't even a threat while you can waste someone who pushes you for screaming at their women in parking lots over where they parked aren't the most logical people anyway, are you?

But either address my point or stop whining that I keep repeating the same answer to your same question because you keep ignoring it.  You're arguing like a leftist.  You don't like a point?  Ignore it and it doesn't exist, right?


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obviously it is not clear
> 
> it is only "clear" in your clouded mind
> 
> you have offered no evidence none what so ever
> 
> that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence?  You're full of shit.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds or so.  The store clerk explains it to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you still have not offered any evidence of such
Click to expand...


Go to the one minute mark of the video ... listen to the next 20 seconds or so.  Again, if your IQ is at least 80, you're capable of grasping my argument.  You don't have to agree with it, make the case if you don't.  But stop being a moron.  Duh, dar, I don't get it kaz.   What does that the guy kept staging the same situation have to do with his intentions?  Sure guy.

Ignore my response because it answers your question and it doesn't exist, right Obama?


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what does the store clerk say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter that the store clerk answers your question?
> 
> Because he answers your question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still he offered no evidence such as you that he "wanted to kill " someone
> 
> face it your opinion is clouded
> 
> and saying something like certainly isnt evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dude, my argument is clear.  If you want to progress the argument, then respond to my point.  It's clear if you have an IQ of at least 80 or so.  But you like the other moonbats who think screaming at women in parking lots over where they parked isn't even a threat while you can waste someone who pushes you for screaming at their women in parking lots over where they parked aren't the most logical people anyway, are you?
> 
> But either address my point or stop whining that I keep repeating the same answer to your same question because you keep ignoring it.  You're arguing like a leftist.  You don't like a point?  Ignore it and it doesn't exist, right?
Click to expand...

he cant read the guys mind any more then you can with your clouded opinion 

and that is all it is is opinion certainly not evidence 

get back to me when you can offer real evidence that he "wanted to kill someone"


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obviously it is not clear
> 
> it is only "clear" in your clouded mind
> 
> you have offered no evidence none what so ever
> 
> that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence?  You're full of shit.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds or so.  The store clerk explains it to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you still have not offered any evidence of such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video ... listen to the next 20 seconds or so.
> 
> Ignore my response because it answers your question and it doesn't exist, right Obama?
Click to expand...



been there dummy an opinion is not evidence


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what does the store clerk say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter that the store clerk answers your question?
> 
> Because he answers your question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still he offered no evidence such as you that he "wanted to kill " someone
> 
> face it your opinion is clouded
> 
> and saying something like certainly isnt evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look dude, my argument is clear.  If you want to progress the argument, then respond to my point.  It's clear if you have an IQ of at least 80 or so.  But you like the other moonbats who think screaming at women in parking lots over where they parked isn't even a threat while you can waste someone who pushes you for screaming at their women in parking lots over where they parked aren't the most logical people anyway, are you?
> 
> But either address my point or stop whining that I keep repeating the same answer to your same question because you keep ignoring it.  You're arguing like a leftist.  You don't like a point?  Ignore it and it doesn't exist, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he cant read the guys mind any more then you can with your clouded opinion
> 
> and that is all it is is opinion certainly not evidence
> 
> get back to me when you can offer real evidence that he "wanted to kill someone"
Click to expand...


He wasn't reading anyone's mind, he was talking about his actions.  

So seriously, you don't think someone repeating their actions means anything?  

Seriously?


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obviously it is not clear
> 
> it is only "clear" in your clouded mind
> 
> you have offered no evidence none what so ever
> 
> that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence?  You're full of shit.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds or so.  The store clerk explains it to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you still have not offered any evidence of such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video ... listen to the next 20 seconds or so.
> 
> Ignore my response because it answers your question and it doesn't exist, right Obama?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> been there dummy an opinion is not evidence
Click to expand...


There is no opinion.  He's talking about the psychos repeated actions


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because the cops would have gotten right on that.
Click to expand...


Oh so you agree with me that the cops won't protect people


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obviously it is not clear
> 
> it is only "clear" in your clouded mind
> 
> you have offered no evidence none what so ever
> 
> that he wanted to kill someone  ya jerk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence?  You're full of shit.  Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds or so.  The store clerk explains it to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you still have not offered any evidence of such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the one minute mark of the video ... listen to the next 20 seconds or so.  Again, if your IQ is at least 80, you're capable of grasping my argument.  You don't have to agree with it, make the case if you don't.  But stop being a moron.  Duh, dar, I don't get it kaz.   What does that the guy kept staging the same situation have to do with his intentions?  Sure guy.
> 
> Ignore my response because it answers your question and it doesn't exist, right Obama?
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that he staged the event. Staging suggest that there was some sort of manipulation of the environmeny, or deceit perpetrated on, the woman to trick her into parking where she did. There is no evidence of staging. Only of the victims vigilance, and consistency in regard to watching non handicapped people occupy a handicapped parking space. Vigilance, and the willingness to point out a person's wrong doing, in no way constitutes "staging an event".


----------



## PredFan

Again, I’m a CCW holder in Florida where this happened. My opinion only, this wasn’t a justified shooting. In that case, I wouldn’t have pulled the trigger.

But I will leave it to the courts, lawyers, and prosecutors to decide.

Again, my opinion, I heard the shooter was talking smack to many people and even threatened to shoot someone in the past. Don’t know if it’s true or not but this guy was a danger imo.


----------



## PredFan

The best way to ruin your life is to walk around talking smack while armed.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

kaz said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same  lame response
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video.  What I said is clear and you're full of shit.
> 
> And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."
> 
> I provided a damned good argument though.  I just got tired of repeating it.  So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.
> 
> What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the one minute mark a reporter was talking to a store clerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does the store clerk say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter that the store clerk answers your question?
> 
> Because he answers your question
Click to expand...


  He didnt see anything.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was in range
> 
> You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?
> 
> How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?
Click to expand...



I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.  

You don't know much about physics do you?


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you brought it up for a specific reason.  You're full of shit.  The Constitution doesn't dictate interactions between citizens and it doesn't empower the Federal government to enforce it's own limits on citizens.  It just doesn't.  You brought up the Constitution in a way that demonstrated that you have zero grasp of what the Constitution even is.  It limits the power of government.  Period
Click to expand...


And despite me telling you  1,000 times I'm not saying the Constitution is for LAWS between person and person, you bring it up again.  You realize you are just as bad as the people you just told you are done arguing with because they won't listen?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was in range
> 
> You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?
> 
> How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
Click to expand...


You do not know how far away he was

and it's real easy to step back then step forward again


----------



## G.T.

2aguy said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race whoring?  Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring.  I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them.  I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was.  Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese.  I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you.  But only from whites.  It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party.  And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "want" anyone to be racist.  The fact is, racism is still prevalent.  If you think this country is as non-racist as it has ever been in human history, you need to start reading REAL educational books that rely on REAL statistics and REAL studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you see the United States today all as Alabama in the 50s, and you only see racism coming from whites, then yeah, you want us to be racists.
> 
> It's ironic you're criticizing a few people in the gun thread for extreme overreaction, then when the situation goes to race you hysterically overreact.  Sure, racism exists.  But that it's gotten worse instead of better and whites are the problem is just stupid, which is what you and the Democrat party are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say there is only racism coming from whites?  Again, if you REALLY want to learn how wrong some of your views about racism being the best it has ever been, I'll loan you some top selling books from VERY respectable authors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you if blacks were racist in your race whoring campaign too or just whites and you declined to answer the question.
> 
> It's the Democrat party campaign to pull this country apart because if you can't rule it, you will destroy it.  Your campaign to claim Trump and Republicans are racist is destroying the country and harming blacks by telling them to be bitter and angry and attacking most whites who aren't racist for being racist anyway.
> 
> But hey, again, if you can't rule the country, you'll ensure there's nothing left.  One of the few Democrat programs that actually works as designed.  Nice job on that.
> 
> But it's our fault, right?  You gave us the choice of succumbing to your will or being destroyed and we picked being destroyed.  We made the choice, right?  Not you ...
Click to expand...


No, there are people of ALL races that are racist.  To think otherwise would be simply stupid.  

But do you understand the difference between saying "Are there other races of people that are racist other than whites?"  and "Are there some people of other races that are racist other than whites?"  

No, I don't think you do because you are so fucking defensive and thick headed because all your life you have heard whites are racist that you have totally lost all objectivity, and will now just disregard any information that doesn't fit the narrative you've built in your head.

I could sit here and write 10+ pages of how there is still wide spread racism against Blacks especially in the criminal justice system, but it would be a waste of time because you don't want to hear it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
Click to expand...


Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was in range
> 
> You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?
> 
> How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
Click to expand...



It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except pushing someone violently to the paved ground can and has killed people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was in range
> 
> You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?
> 
> How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
Click to expand...

You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted

But hey just for fun let's see your math


----------



## G.T.

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
Click to expand...

If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.

Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back. 

He pulled it alright..

the man stepped the fuck back, alright..

and was shot as he did so.

THATS a bitch move, and its murder.

Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..

dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
Click to expand...


In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it

The other guy was doing nothing but yelling

So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling


----------



## G.T.

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
Click to expand...

If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was in range to finish the attack and square to the shooter.
Click to expand...


Bullshit!


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
Click to expand...


If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot


----------



## Vastator

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
Click to expand...

That's actually what any reasonable person should expect. Holding such an expectation can keep you from being shot for doing so.


----------



## G.T.

This is total unga bunga shit...Apes dont deserve to own weapons.

Theres a reason we dont cut hands off for stealing....and teachers dont tear a kindergartener's throat out with two fingers as punishment for pushing someone down. 

Apes fight with their hands and its rare without weapons for a death to occur. We live to fight another day, and we dont engage in frivolous and nonsensical battles if we cant defend ourselves rationally. 

A shove....fuck even a good punch in the mouth...shit, a broken jaw and a crooked nose....dont warrant DEATH in return. Apes


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...



More bullshit.

"Squared up" means nothing when you are being shot to death.


----------



## G.T.

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
Click to expand...

I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try to make this clear to you for umpteenth time.  Stand your ground law only allows someone to shoot someone if they feel their life is in imminent danger.  When the man shot him, the victim was 7-10 feet AWAY from the shooter and backing up.  He was not within range to do anymore to him, and is unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> He certainly was in range
> 
> You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?
> 
> How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
Click to expand...


It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.

You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> He backed away when the gun was drawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be nice to now what was said in the moment he recovered from the violent shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....
Click to expand...


So?  

You keep bring in crap that is not in evidence and crap that is defied by the visual evidence.


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
Click to expand...

Then you are an idiot

but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens


----------



## iamwhatiseem

ozro said:


> Let the court and a jury decide.



It won't get that far. He has to be charged with a crime first.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retreating is retreating.  And he was unarmed.  No excuse to go any further and shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.... you saw the attack from the video, the victim saw the attack after violently experiencing it...big freaking difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has the gun.  The attacker stopped.  No reason to go further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if you studied self defense you would know that it isn't that simple after you have been violently attacked.... you ability to perceive time and distance and your visual awareness are reduced.......  ever been in a car accident?  The same effect as the attack.
Click to expand...


Does that justify killing someone?  No.

I wish I knew where your brain went.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> This is total unga bunga shit...Apes dont deserve to own weapons.
> 
> Theres a reason we dont cut hands off for stealing....and teachers dont tear a kindergartener's throat out with two fingers as punishment for pushing someone down.
> 
> Apes fight with their hands and its rare without weapons for a death to occur. We live to fight another day, and we dont engage in frivolous and nonsensical battles if we cant defend ourselves rationally.
> 
> A shove....fuck even a good punch in the mouth...shit, a broken jaw and a crooked nose....dont warrant DEATH in return. Apes


No. UnGa-bunga shit, is shoving someone down from their blind side for saying something you don't like, in a way you don't like. If he was the gallant do folder many here are trying to sell him as; he would have placed himself between the woman, and the victim, and then verbally engaged the man. And without dispute; that is not what he did. He thought he had the drop on someone, and was going to get away with a "cheap shot". He was gravely mistaken. Live like a thug, die like a thug...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He certainly was in range
> 
> You don't know shit about unarmed combat do you?
> 
> How fast do you think a person can close in from 7 feet away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
Click to expand...


You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person

IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will also make a difference that the attacker stayed squared up with the attacker and didn't turn away from him...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you turn your back on a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I was retreating post haste
Click to expand...


That is quick way to get shot in the back!


----------



## G.T.

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are an idiot
> 
> but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens
Click to expand...

I'll tackle any man screaming at my woman so badly that a patron runs into the store to tell someone about it, and the person screaming in her face like a jackass will likely be less of a caveman than the lot of your psychos that think that any physical altercation is just means for execution.

You dont belong in a civilized society.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it comes to shooting someone dead.  You are opening the door to legitimizing killing a person for almost any reason under the vague term of “fear”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No moron...... the victim on the ground saw a completely different attacker than you did from your home watching a video from the corner of the store, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has the gun.  The attacker stopped.  No reason to go further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if you studied self defense you would know that it isn't that simple after you have been violently attacked.... you ability to perceive time and distance and your visual awareness are reduced.......  ever been in a car accident?  The same effect as the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me that when some has a gun then, they are far to quick to use it.  The assaulter was unarmed. It was a public place with other people around.  He started the confrontation. The video showed good distance between them.
> 
> That man should not have been killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The victim who was pushed did not start the physical assault.....he was attacked by the black guy.....and the black guy kept moving forward right after the push and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out.
> 
> The video doesn't show the distance between them since it is on the corner of the store, you can't tell how close they actually were....that is the problem with making this judgement from the comfort of your home and not from the ground after being violently attacked.
Click to expand...


What video are you watching?  The man was backing up and had his hands out.

You do realize that the shooting does not take place on the linked videos, right?  It occurs after.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

2aguy said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a better view of the attack....the attacker kept advancing after he pushed and didn't put up his hands as the gun came out..... he was still percieved as a threat by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking?  When the woman got out of the car, the shooter stepped up into her face, that's when he got pushed to the ground.  The victim then started to back up and pulled up his shorts before he then started to put up his hands as he got shot.  There was a good 6 feet in between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I think I see your problem.  You need glasses.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> 
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are an idiot
> 
> but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll tackle any man screaming at my woman so badly that a patron runs into the store to tell someone about it, and the person screaming in her face like a jackass will likely be less of a caveman than the lot of your psychos that think that any physical altercation is just means for execution.
> 
> You dont belong in a civilized society.
Click to expand...

This could be a contender for "Ironic Post of the Year"...


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is total unga bunga shit...Apes dont deserve to own weapons.
> 
> Theres a reason we dont cut hands off for stealing....and teachers dont tear a kindergartener's throat out with two fingers as punishment for pushing someone down.
> 
> Apes fight with their hands and its rare without weapons for a death to occur. We live to fight another day, and we dont engage in frivolous and nonsensical battles if we cant defend ourselves rationally.
> 
> A shove....fuck even a good punch in the mouth...shit, a broken jaw and a crooked nose....dont warrant DEATH in return. Apes
> 
> 
> 
> No. UnGa-bunga shit, is shoving someone down from their blind side for saying something you don't like, in a way you don't like. If he was the gallant do folder many here are trying to sell him as; he would have placed himself between the woman, and the victim, and then verbally engaged the man. And without dispute; that is not what he did. He thought he had the drop on someone, and was going to get away with a "cheap shot". He was gravely mistaken. Live like a thug, die like a thug...
Click to expand...

standing up for your woman against a psychotic meth head who guards parking spots with a gun is 100% correct

yall are backwoods ape like creature thinking any physical altercation between folks justifies deadly force.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.
> 
> The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises
Click to expand...


How did he know the shooter was even out there?  Assume much?


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are an idiot
> 
> but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll tackle any man screaming at my woman so badly that a patron runs into the store to tell someone about it, and the person screaming in her face like a jackass will likely be less of a caveman than the lot of your psychos that think that any physical altercation is just means for execution.
> 
> You dont belong in a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This could be a contender for "Ironic Post of the Year"...
Click to expand...

Yeah not really. 

Humans get in fist-fights....news at 11. If youre looking to avoid them, dont bodyguard parking spots like an ape.

If youre looking to own a gun, learn when its appropriate to end a human beings fucking life.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> self defense is learning how to defend yourself like a man and not like a coward that kills someone because he shoved you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
Click to expand...


Bullshit!  The guy was obviously not injured, so he had no right to shoot his attacker.

The guy who shoved him was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die for it.


----------



## Vastator

G.T. said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is total unga bunga shit...Apes dont deserve to own weapons.
> 
> Theres a reason we dont cut hands off for stealing....and teachers dont tear a kindergartener's throat out with two fingers as punishment for pushing someone down.
> 
> Apes fight with their hands and its rare without weapons for a death to occur. We live to fight another day, and we dont engage in frivolous and nonsensical battles if we cant defend ourselves rationally.
> 
> A shove....fuck even a good punch in the mouth...shit, a broken jaw and a crooked nose....dont warrant DEATH in return. Apes
> 
> 
> 
> No. UnGa-bunga shit, is shoving someone down from their blind side for saying something you don't like, in a way you don't like. If he was the gallant do folder many here are trying to sell him as; he would have placed himself between the woman, and the victim, and then verbally engaged the man. And without dispute; that is not what he did. He thought he had the drop on someone, and was going to get away with a "cheap shot". He was gravely mistaken. Live like a thug, die like a thug...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> standing up for your woman against a psychotic meth head who guards parking spots with a gun is 100% correct
> 
> yall are backwoods ape like creature thinking any physical altercation between folks justifies deadly force.
Click to expand...

So standing up for "your woman" can only mean assaulting someone from their blind side? Are you really absolving the assailant from all guilt, and responsibility, just because he ended up dead, when he didn't expect to? This is ludicrous. 
He had a voice too. He could have yelled and drawn the victims attention. He could have placed himself in between "his woman", and the victim. He did none of these things. He made a choice. He chose violence. And he got violence. It just didn't pan out like he thought it would...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
Click to expand...


Talking out your ass again? Focal length?  Hilarious!

You take an approximate measurement, such as the human foot, which we know is roughly about a foot in length and then compare that to the distance involved.  Its middle school math, you simpleton!


----------



## G.T.

Vastator said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is total unga bunga shit...Apes dont deserve to own weapons.
> 
> Theres a reason we dont cut hands off for stealing....and teachers dont tear a kindergartener's throat out with two fingers as punishment for pushing someone down.
> 
> Apes fight with their hands and its rare without weapons for a death to occur. We live to fight another day, and we dont engage in frivolous and nonsensical battles if we cant defend ourselves rationally.
> 
> A shove....fuck even a good punch in the mouth...shit, a broken jaw and a crooked nose....dont warrant DEATH in return. Apes
> 
> 
> 
> No. UnGa-bunga shit, is shoving someone down from their blind side for saying something you don't like, in a way you don't like. If he was the gallant do folder many here are trying to sell him as; he would have placed himself between the woman, and the victim, and then verbally engaged the man. And without dispute; that is not what he did. He thought he had the drop on someone, and was going to get away with a "cheap shot". He was gravely mistaken. Live like a thug, die like a thug...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> standing up for your woman against a psychotic meth head who guards parking spots with a gun is 100% correct
> 
> yall are backwoods ape like creature thinking any physical altercation between folks justifies deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So standing up for "your woman" can only mean assaulting someone from their blind side? Are you really absolving the assailant from all guilt, and responsibility, just because he ended up dead, when he didn't expect to? This is ludicrous.
> He had a voice too. He could have yelled and drawn the victims attention. He could have placed himself in between "his woman", and the victim. He did none of these things. He made a choice. He chose violence. And he got violence. It just didn't pan out like he thought it would...
Click to expand...

no matter how many ways you wanna say it

if you think its rational to shoot someone for shoving you, youre an ape that doesnt belong owning a weapon that can terminate someone because your judgment is lethal to society


----------



## Vastator

Sounds to me like many posters are suffering from the sobering realization that, "Holy shit! That could have been me..." Indeed. And if you think assaulting people for saying things you don't like, in a way you don't like; then choose to assault someone... Indeed. That could be you. Learn from this thugs mistake. Don't be "that guy".


----------



## iamwhatiseem

In my view.... there are two things that are evident - IF - the story as reported is accurate.

1) The aggressor went way overboard in walking up to this guy and shoving his ass to the ground like he did.
2) The shooter went way overboard in shooting him, particularly when his attacker after seeing the gun took a step back.
  Is the shooter guilty of murder? No. Manslaughter? Probably. 
If I was carrying and got slammed to the ground like that, I would also pull out my gun. But I wouldn't shoot him


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
Click to expand...


So sad to sit here and listen to you try to make excuses.  You know you can teach yourself how to figure this shit out, that unless you lack the capability to learn.


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty.  He was also backing up.  Pretty hard to hurt someone while unarmed and moving away from them from 7+ feet away.
> 
> You don't know much about physics do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
Click to expand...


I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Bob Gualtieri, the Pinellas County sheriff, insisted he has to follow the "stand your ground" law, which dictates that if a person feels threatened they have the right to shoot.“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law," Sherrif Gualtieri said at a press conference. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”


Sheriff: Shooting fits 'Stand Your Ground'

"It wasn't just a push," Gualtieri explained. "He really slammed him to the ground and he pushed him with great force. This was a violent push."

Drejka then pulled out a handgun and shot McGlockton once in the chest. Gualtieri specified that Drejka took four seconds to fire his weapon.

Ali Salous, the owner of the Circle A convenience store, told us Drejka has caused problems at his store before.

"This guy -- he did this before," Salous said. "He always hangs out in the parking lot and if he sees someone parking, he just wants to start trouble with people."

Gualtieri, however, maintained that Drejka's history didn't matter when it comes to making an arrest. All that matters, according to the sheriff, are the facts of this brief confrontation caught on tape.

"He might well be a thorn in people's side. He might be a jerk," Gualtieri explained. "He might be all those things, it doesn't matter. What matters is 'did McGlockton slam Drejka to the ground?' Yes, he did.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Bob Gualtieri, the Pinellas County sheriff, insisted he has to follow the "stand your ground" law, which dictates that if a person feels threatened they have the right to shoot.“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law," Sherrif Gualtieri said at a press conference. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”
> 
> 
> Sheriff: Shooting fits 'Stand Your Ground'
> 
> "It wasn't just a push," Gualtieri explained. "He really slammed him to the ground and he pushed him with great force. This was a violent push."
> 
> Drejka then pulled out a handgun and shot McGlockton once in the chest. *Gualtieri specified that Drejka took four seconds to fire his weapon.*
> 
> Ali Salous, the owner of the Circle A convenience store, told us Drejka has caused problems at his store before.
> 
> "This guy -- he did this before," Salous said. "He always hangs out in the parking lot and if he sees someone parking, he just wants to start trouble with people."
> 
> Gualtieri, however, maintained that Drejka's history didn't matter when it comes to making an arrest. All that matters, according to the sheriff, are the facts of this brief confrontation caught on tape.
> 
> "He might well be a thorn in people's side. He might be a jerk," Gualtieri explained. "He might be all those things, it doesn't matter. What matters is 'did McGlockton slam Drejka to the ground?' Yes, he did.




That four seconds will be what gets him thrown in prison.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That four seconds will be what gets him thrown in prison.



It didn't even get him arrested and the Sheriff investigators didn't provide evidence to the contrary.

What is "_keep your hands to yourself"_ for $100 Alex?


----------



## OODA_Loop

iamwhatiseem said:


> If I was carrying and got slammed to the ground like that, I would also pull out my gun. But I wouldn't shoot him



That is against the law in Florida to brandish.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That four seconds will be what gets him thrown in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't even get him arrested and the Sheriff investigators didn't provide evidence to the contrary.
> 
> What is "_keep your hands to yourself"_ for $100 Alex?
Click to expand...


A sheriff doesn't make the judgment on defenses like SYG laws.  The prosecutor does.  The sheriff certainly did provide evidence to the contrary, it's the fucking video tape.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

OODA_Loop said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was carrying and got slammed to the ground like that, I would also pull out my gun. But I wouldn't shoot him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is against the law in Florida to brandish.
Click to expand...

Not in connection with defending your self it is not.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> A sheriff doesn't make the judgment on defenses like SYG laws.  The prosecutor does.  The sheriff certainly did provide evidence to the contrary, it's the fucking video tape.



The prosecutor relies on the investigative findings and recommendation of law enforcement - both of which indicates no charges.   The Sheriff would consult the prosecutor before not filing charges.


----------



## OODA_Loop

iamwhatiseem said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was carrying and got slammed to the ground like that, I would also pull out my gun. But I wouldn't shoot him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is against the law in Florida to brandish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in connection with defending your self it is not.
Click to expand...



Here a Florida woman brandished a firearm and fired a warning shot and was not able to use stand your ground.  She got 20 years.   

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - CBS News

In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "stand your ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself,"


----------



## iamwhatiseem

OODA_Loop said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was carrying and got slammed to the ground like that, I would also pull out my gun. But I wouldn't shoot him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is against the law in Florida to brandish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in connection with defending your self it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here a Florida woman brandished a firearm and fired a warning shot and was not able to use stand your ground.  She got 20 years.
> 
> Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - CBS News
> 
> In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "stand your ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself,"
Click to expand...


The judge is wrong.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sheriff doesn't make the judgment on defenses like SYG laws.  The prosecutor does.  The sheriff certainly did provide evidence to the contrary, it's the fucking video tape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prosecutor relies on the investigative findings and recommendation of law enforcement - both of which indicates no charges.   The Sheriff would consult the prosecutor before not filing charges.
Click to expand...



That's NOT what the sheriff said.  At this point I'm not sure if you are too stupid to understand how the criminal justice system works, you are so pro-gun that you don't want there to be any restrictions on being able to shoot first ask questions later, or are one of the Russian trolls getting paid to go online and just keep stirring shit.


----------



## OODA_Loop

It is what the Sheriff did.   I am not stupid.   The man was attacked and defended himself within the law.  A very anti-gun sheriff, who doesn't agree with SYG, let him go for SYG reasons.   Keep your hands to yourself,   Just like Kindergarten


----------



## iamwhatiseem

OODA_Loop said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT what the sheriff said.  At this point I'm not sure if you are too stupid to understand how the criminal justice system works, you are so pro-gun that you don't want there to be any restrictions on being able to shoot first ask questions later, or are one of the Russian trolls getting paid to go online and just keep stirring shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is what the Sheriff did.   I am not stupid.   The man was attacked and defended himself within the law.  A very anti-gun sheriff, who doesn't agree with SYG, let him go for SYG reasons.   Keep your hands to yourself,   Just like Kindergarten
Click to expand...


Uh.... that is not my quote.


----------



## G.T.

iamwhatiseem said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's NOT what the sheriff said.  At this point I'm not sure if you are too stupid to understand how the criminal justice system works, you are so pro-gun that you don't want there to be any restrictions on being able to shoot first ask questions later, or are one of the Russian trolls getting paid to go online and just keep stirring shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is what the Sheriff did.   I am not stupid.   The man was attacked and defended himself within the law.  A very anti-gun sheriff, who doesn't agree with SYG, let him go for SYG reasons.   Keep your hands to yourself,   Just like Kindergarten
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... that is not my quote.
Click to expand...

he did the same thing to me twice in this thread


----------



## OODA_Loop

G.T. said:


> he did the same thing to me twice in this thread




and fixed the error immediately as here.....your point ?


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> It is what the Sheriff did.   I am not stupid.   The man was attacked and defended himself within the law.  A very anti-gun sheriff, who doesn't agree with SYG, let him go for SYG reasons.   Keep your hands to yourself,   Just like Kindergarten



No.  The sheriff said that the defense the shooter is using FITS within the requirements to use SYG as a defense.  Now... but he also said it is up to the prosecutor to decide if this case meets the actual requirements necessary.

How can you possibly not understand the difference?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is what the Sheriff did.   I am not stupid.   The man was attacked and defended himself within the law.  A very anti-gun sheriff, who doesn't agree with SYG, let him go for SYG reasons.   Keep your hands to yourself,   Just like Kindergarten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The sheriff said that the defense the shooter is using FITS within the requirements to use SYG as a defense.  Now... but he also said it is up to the prosecutor to decide if this case meets the actual requirements necessary.
> 
> How can you possibly not understand the difference?
Click to expand...


What evidence will the State Attorney rely on ?


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is what the Sheriff did.   I am not stupid.   The man was attacked and defended himself within the law.  A very anti-gun sheriff, who doesn't agree with SYG, let him go for SYG reasons.   Keep your hands to yourself,   Just like Kindergarten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The sheriff said that the defense the shooter is using FITS within the requirements to use SYG as a defense.  Now... but he also said it is up to the prosecutor to decide if this case meets the actual requirements necessary.
> 
> How can you possibly not understand the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence will the State Attorney rely on ?
Click to expand...


The video for one.

Let me try to give you a VERY simple example.

Your work tells you that if you call in or are late you HAVE to bring in an excuse.

You return to work and tell them you got into a big argument with people in a political forum and lost track of time.

Well you followed the policy for being late by giving them an excuse.  Does that mean you aren't going to get into any trouble?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

There are ramifications to this case outside of the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.

Think of how many times people like this, in their selfishness, have caused LEGITIMATELY DISABLED people who NEED close up parking spaces to suffer or to not be able to participate in the normal activities of life because some totally self-absorbed scum took advantage of the system.  Forget race.  Not about race.
Think of TRULY crippled people, the sick and elderly.  Do you think this was the first time they did this?   Karma.

One of the reasons people like the deceased are wreaking so much havoc on society is exactly because they KNOW the consequences if any, will be laughable.
By not making people pay consequences like shoving people who haven't touched them first, like driving like maniacs endangering others lives, we encourage this behavior and on a nationwide scale, it has grown into a massive problem.

Did he deserve to die?  Probably not....but did he deserve to get away with shoving ANYONE?  NO.   HELL NO.  And that's the problem.  They usually get away with it.  People have no incentive to do the right thing so society as a whole grows uglier and more dangerous.

The guy telling non handicapped people not to park in handicap spaces should be commended.
He was brave.   You just look the other way.  You don't care that real handicapped people suffer because of morons like this.  It doesn't affect you.  So easy to ignore it.
Our system conditions people to look the other way.  Makes for such a wonderful society <sarc>

Let this be a strong message to ALL who go about their selfish lives wreaking havoc on others due to utter arrogance and selfishness that not everyone will put up with your shit.


----------



## SavannahMann

BasicHumanUnit said:


> There are ramifications to this case outside of the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.
> 
> Think of how many times people like this, in their selfishness, have caused LEGITIMATELY DISABLED people who NEED close up parking spaces to suffer or to not be able to participate in the normal activities of life because some totally self-absorbed scum took advantage of the system.  Forget race.  Not about race.
> Think of TRULY crippled people, the sick and elderly.  Do you think this was the first time they did this?   Karma.
> 
> One of the reasons people like the deceased are wreaking so much havoc on society is exactly because they KNOW the consequences if any, will be laughable.
> By not making people pay consequences like shoving people who haven't touched them first, like driving like maniacs endangering others lives, we encourage this behavior and on a nationwide scale, it has grown into a massive problem.
> 
> Did he deserve to die?  Probably not....but did he deserve to get away with shoving ANYONE?  NO.   HELL NO.  And that's the problem.  They usually get away with it.  People have no incentive to do the right thing so society as a whole grows uglier and more dangerous.
> 
> Let this be a strong message to ALL who go about their selfish lives wreaking havoc on others due to utter arrogance and selfishness that not everyone will put up with your shit.



I find your comments annoying and offensive. If I am on the jury, should you be attacked, should my feelings about you affect the judgement on those who have done you harm?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That four seconds will be what gets him thrown in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't even get him arrested and the Sheriff investigators didn't provide evidence to the contrary.
> 
> What is "_keep your hands to yourself"_ for $100 Alex?
Click to expand...


He is assuming the SYG law applies.  It obviously does not and will be overridden by the courts.


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> There are ramifications to this case outside of the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.
> 
> Think of how many times people like this, in their selfishness, have caused LEGITIMATELY DISABLED people who NEED close up parking spaces to suffer or to not be able to participate in the normal activities of life because some totally self-absorbed scum took advantage of the system.  Forget race.  Not about race.
> Think of TRULY crippled people, the sick and elderly.  Do you think this was the first time they did this?   Karma.
> 
> One of the reasons people like the deceased are wreaking so much havoc on society is exactly because they KNOW the consequences if any, will be laughable.
> By not making people pay consequences like shoving people who haven't touched them first, like driving like maniacs endangering others lives, we encourage this behavior and on a nationwide scale, it has grown into a massive problem.
> 
> Did he deserve to die?  Probably not....but did he deserve to get away with shoving ANYONE?  NO.   HELL NO.  And that's the problem.  They usually get away with it.  People have no incentive to do the right thing so society as a whole grows uglier and more dangerous.
> 
> The guy telling non handicapped people not to park in handicap spaces should be commended.
> He was brave.   You just look the other way.  You don't care that real handicapped people suffer because of morons like this.  It doesn't affect you.  So easy to ignore it.
> 
> Let this be a strong message to ALL who go about their selfish lives wreaking havoc on others due to utter arrogance and selfishness that not everyone will put up with your shit.




Haha that is the funniest shit right there.  You just said a person "probably not" deserved to die for parking in a Handicap parking space.


----------



## Flash

G.T. said:


> [QU
> 
> no matter how many ways you wanna say it
> 
> if you think its rational to shoot someone for shoving you, youre an ape that doesnt belong owning a weapon that can terminate someone because your judgment is lethal to society



It is not rational to violently shove an elderly person down for just a verbal altercation.

In fact it is really stupid in a state that has very good concealed carry laws and a "stand your ground" law.  Really stupid.


----------



## Vastator

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That four seconds will be what gets him thrown in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't even get him arrested and the Sheriff investigators didn't provide evidence to the contrary.
> 
> What is "_keep your hands to yourself"_ for $100 Alex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is assuming the SYG law applies.  It obviously does not and will be overridden by the courts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that heads up Madame Cleo...


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

SavannahMann said:


> I find your comments annoying and offensive. If I am on the jury, should you be attacked, should my feelings about you affect the judgement on those who have done you harm?



Probably because you're one of those pigs that does the same thing.   
And your comment makes no sense.

This is about taking responsibility for bad things you do to others.  Of course you're annoyed.


----------



## Flash

The wife said in a local TV  interview that she "always parks wherever she wants".

The bitch picked the wrong parking place and paid for it with the life of her husband.  

Next time it would be good for her to obey the law, wouldn't it?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are ramifications to this case outside of the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.
> 
> Think of how many times people like this, in their selfishness, have caused LEGITIMATELY DISABLED people who NEED close up parking spaces to suffer or to not be able to participate in the normal activities of life because some totally self-absorbed scum took advantage of the system.  Forget race.  Not about race.
> Think of TRULY crippled people, the sick and elderly.  Do you think this was the first time they did this?   Karma.
> 
> One of the reasons people like the deceased are wreaking so much havoc on society is exactly because they KNOW the consequences if any, will be laughable.
> By not making people pay consequences like shoving people who haven't touched them first, like driving like maniacs endangering others lives, we encourage this behavior and on a nationwide scale, it has grown into a massive problem.
> 
> Did he deserve to die?  Probably not....but did he deserve to get away with shoving ANYONE?  NO.   HELL NO.  And that's the problem.  They usually get away with it.  People have no incentive to do the right thing so society as a whole grows uglier and more dangerous.
> 
> The guy telling non handicapped people not to park in handicap spaces should be commended.
> He was brave.   You just look the other way.  You don't care that real handicapped people suffer because of morons like this.  It doesn't affect you.  So easy to ignore it.
> 
> Let this be a strong message to ALL who go about their selfish lives wreaking havoc on others due to utter arrogance and selfishness that not everyone will put up with your shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha that is the funniest shit right there.  You just said a person "probably not" deserved to die for parking in a Handicap parking space.
Click to expand...


Not really.
I said the guy probably didn't deserve to die because he pushed someone.

Comprehension is useful if you're gonna participate.

But I ask too much of you.


----------



## Flash

You can argue with me all you want and I won't shoot you.

However, if you physically attack me that is a different story.  Actions have consequences.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Flash said:


> The wife said in a local TV  interview that she "always parks wherever she wants".
> 
> The bitch picked the wrong parking place and paid for it with the life of her husband.
> 
> Next time it would be good for her to obey the law, wouldn't it?



BINGO !!!
Exactly what I'm talking about.
Now we have millions of people just like this who get away with cutting people off in lines, carrying 30 items to the 10 items or less express checkout lanes and on and on and on.

And the imbeciles defending this are the same ones out there doing it.


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are ramifications to this case outside of the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.
> 
> Think of how many times people like this, in their selfishness, have caused LEGITIMATELY DISABLED people who NEED close up parking spaces to suffer or to not be able to participate in the normal activities of life because some totally self-absorbed scum took advantage of the system.  Forget race.  Not about race.
> Think of TRULY crippled people, the sick and elderly.  Do you think this was the first time they did this?   Karma.
> 
> One of the reasons people like the deceased are wreaking so much havoc on society is exactly because they KNOW the consequences if any, will be laughable.
> By not making people pay consequences like shoving people who haven't touched them first, like driving like maniacs endangering others lives, we encourage this behavior and on a nationwide scale, it has grown into a massive problem.
> 
> Did he deserve to die?  Probably not....but did he deserve to get away with shoving ANYONE?  NO.   HELL NO.  And that's the problem.  They usually get away with it.  People have no incentive to do the right thing so society as a whole grows uglier and more dangerous.
> 
> The guy telling non handicapped people not to park in handicap spaces should be commended.
> He was brave.   You just look the other way.  You don't care that real handicapped people suffer because of morons like this.  It doesn't affect you.  So easy to ignore it.
> 
> Let this be a strong message to ALL who go about their selfish lives wreaking havoc on others due to utter arrogance and selfishness that not everyone will put up with your shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha that is the funniest shit right there.  You just said a person "probably not" deserved to die for parking in a Handicap parking space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> I said the guy probably didn't deserve to die because he pushed someone.
> 
> Comprehension is useful if you're gonna participate.
> 
> But I ask too much of you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flash

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wife said in a local TV  interview that she "always parks wherever she wants".
> 
> The bitch picked the wrong parking place and paid for it with the life of her husband.
> 
> Next time it would be good for her to obey the law, wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO !!!
> Exactly what I'm talking about.
> Now we have millions of people just like this who get away with cutting people off in lines, carrying 30 items to the 10 items or less express checkout lanes and on and on and on.
> 
> And the imbeciles defending this are the same ones out there doing it.
Click to expand...



This woman though she was special.  An entitlement mentality.  The rules that  the rest of us live by don't apply to her.

Now that wouldn't have pissed me off.  If I would have seen her illegally park in a handicap spot I would have probably just made a little remark to my wife about how shitty it was and let it go at that.  In fact all that I would have done is probably just kinda of smiled to myself for the greedy selfishness that i see occasionally from some people. 

However, not everybody is as easy going as me.  That would piss of some people to point where they would feel it necessary to say something.

If I walked out of a store and saw somebody in an argument with my wife I would try to deescalate it and leave.  I would not attack somebody just for verbal statements.  I may be pissed but I wouldn't attack them.

The thing that led to violence in this case was the physical attack.  Once that happens then don't blame anybody except the initiator over the consequences that follow,.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

.


Flash said:


> This woman though she was special.  An entitlement mentality.  The rules that  the rest of us live by don't apply to her.
> Now that wouldn't have pissed me off.  If I would have seen her illegally park in a handicap spot I would have probably just made a little remark to my wife about how shitty it was and let it go at that.  In fact all that I would have done is probably just kinda of smiled to myself for the greedy selfishness that i see occasionally from some people.
> However, not everybody is as easy going as me.  That would piss of some people to point where they would feel it necessary to say something.
> If I walked out of a store and saw somebody in an argument with my wife I would try to deescalate it and leave.  I would not attack somebody just for verbal statements.  I may be pissed but I wouldn't attack them.
> The thing that led to violence in this case was the physical attack.  Once that happens then don't blame anybody except the initiator over the consequences that follow,.



And of course you're right.
Huge difference between telling someone you don't like what they did....

and physically assaulting them.

Unfortunately, too many people feel entitled to use physical force when they don't like what you may have said.


----------



## Flash

BasicHumanUnit said:


> .
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> This woman though she was special.  An entitlement mentality.  The rules that  the rest of us live by don't apply to her.
> Now that wouldn't have pissed me off.  If I would have seen her illegally park in a handicap spot I would have probably just made a little remark to my wife about how shitty it was and let it go at that.  In fact all that I would have done is probably just kinda of smiled to myself for the greedy selfishness that i see occasionally from some people.
> However, not everybody is as easy going as me.  That would piss of some people to point where they would feel it necessary to say something.
> If I walked out of a store and saw somebody in an argument with my wife I would try to deescalate it and leave.  I would not attack somebody just for verbal statements.  I may be pissed but I wouldn't attack them.
> The thing that led to violence in this case was the physical attack.  Once that happens then don't blame anybody except the initiator over the consequences that follow,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you're right.
> Huge difference between telling someone you don't like what they did....
> 
> and physically assaulting them.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many people feel entitled to use physical force when they don't like what you may have said.
Click to expand...



I carry and I know how to use a firearm.

If somebody was to physically attack me or someone from my family they had better be prepared to have a bad day.

However, now having said that, I don't think I would kill somebody just for shoving me down.  But not everybody is as disciplined as me.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


>



Ahhh I see.
You're following me around trolling my posts.

Great, just hit the "Like" button.  
Following me around and trolling my posts means I hit a nerve with you.
I'm gettin to ya  

Good


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh I see.
> You're following me around trolling my posts.
> 
> Great, just hit the "Like" button.
> Following me around and trolling my posts means I hit a nerve with you.
> I'm gettin to ya
> 
> Good
Click to expand...


Following you around to troll your posts?  Two posts I responded to one of which was you replying to me?

That's what you call following you around?

No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Flash said:


> I carry and I know how to use a firearm.
> If somebody was to physically attack me or someone from my family they had better be prepared to have a bad day.
> However, now having said that, I don't think I would kill somebody just for shoving me down.  But not everybody is as disciplined as me.



Ditto.
I rarely ever get bothered.  I guess I've got that look.
I have a general rule....if there's any hostility...or I sense hostility....don't come inside my 5 ft circle. 
If you pay attention, you can usually tell if someone's up to something by the look in their eyes, posture, motions or proximity.
If you're in a situation with person A or A&B, stay alert for person C or C&D
Being aware of your situation is the key.

IN this case, the guy who did the shoving was wrong.  Scolding someone for doing something isn't assault & battery and is perfectly legal.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.



TBH, any moron who posts one meme/emoji/gif or whatever a dozen times  in one post is an idiot to begin with.
With that out of the way.....

Innocent?  You don't consider assault & battery a crime?

How the fuck was the guy who did the shoving "innocent".
What the hell is your problem?

Not only that, they could have deprived some poor handicapped person a place to park conveniently.   And the fuckwads already admitted they do it all the time.

You're probably defending them because YOU do the same shit.
Maybe this is your Maxine Waters side coming out.


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TBH, any moron who posts one meme a dozen times is an idiot to begin with.
> With that out of the way.....
> 
> Innocent?  You don't consider assault & battery a crime?
> 
> How the fuck was the guy who did the shoving "innocent".
> What the hell is your problem?
> 
> Not only that, they could have deprived some poor handicapped person a place to park conveniently.   And the fuckwads already admitted they do it all the time.
> 
> You're probably defending them because YOU do the same shit.
> Maybe this is your Maxine Waters side coming out.
Click to expand...



It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?


----------



## Lewdog

I NEVER park in a handicap spot and I HATE when others do, but fucking using that as a distraction in a thread about a guy showing that people who legally own a gun can still be a danger to society is a chicken shit move.

When I lived in Ohio, I volunteered for a Bingo Hall in Franklin, Ohio that was for handicap citizens for almost 4 years.  Two nights of the week.  It was called Society for Handicap Citizens.  

http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/OH/Society-For-Handicapped-Citizens-Inc-Warren-County.html

You are barking up the wrong fucking tree.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> I NEVER park in a handicap spot and I HATE when others do, but fucking using that as a distraction in a thread about a guy showing that people who legally own a gun can still be a danger to society is a chicken shit move.
> 
> When I lived in Ohio, I volunteered for a Bingo Hall in Franklin, Ohio that was for handicap citizens for almost 4 years.  Two nights of the week.  It was called Society for Handicap Citizens.
> 
> http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/OH/Society-For-Handicapped-Citizens-Inc-Warren-County.html
> 
> You are barking up the wrong fucking tree.



Was that court ordered Community Service by any chance? (I'm serious)

Then why did you attack my post DEFENDING HANDICAPPED PEOPLE?
Like I said, he probably didn't deserve to die for shoving the other man.   You seemed to think it was funny.

I'm all for discussion, but when someone gets asinine and juvenile all bets are off.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Credible as it comes.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?



Just stop this BS if you want to be taken seriously.
I didn't feel like spelling out emoji/gif or whatever else it might be called.  You KNOW what was meant.
This is showing your ass.   It's not important to the discussion.
I never claimed to be infallible or that I can never make a mistake.
Is that how you see me?

I have a college education and more, but fuck knowing everything or never making ANY mistakes.


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I NEVER park in a handicap spot and I HATE when others do, but fucking using that as a distraction in a thread about a guy showing that people who legally own a gun can still be a danger to society is a chicken shit move.
> 
> When I lived in Ohio, I volunteered for a Bingo Hall in Franklin, Ohio that was for handicap citizens for almost 4 years.  Two nights of the week.  It was called Society for Handicap Citizens.
> 
> http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/OH/Society-For-Handicapped-Citizens-Inc-Warren-County.html
> 
> You are barking up the wrong fucking tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that court ordered Community Service by any chance?
> 
> Then why did you attack my post DEFENDING HANDICAPPED PEOPLE?
> Like I said, he probably didn't deserve to die for shoving the other man.   You seemed to think it was funny.
> 
> I'm all for discussion, but when someone gets asinine and juvenile all bets are off.
Click to expand...


Uh no?  My high school friends uncle was handicapped so bad he had to stay at the home.  So I decided to do it... 4 hours a night, 2 days a week.  So your faked outrage over the handicap spot is pretty easy to spot as a red herring in this thread.

I've never been arrested or spent a day in jail.   

Sucks when people you want to hate and argue with aren't the bad people you want to make them out to be doesn't it?


----------



## OODA_Loop

From the press conference:

Question:  _What about this man needing to protect his family ?_

Sheriff:  _There is no evidence of that.
_
Turn the lights out.


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just stop this BS if you want to be taken seriously.
> I didn't feel like spelling out emoji/gif or whatever else it might be called.  You KNOW what was meant.
> This is shoeing your ass.   It's not important to his discussion.
Click to expand...


No, because a meme is the bullshit trolling post Trump followers like to use.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> Uh no?  My high school friends uncle was handicapped so bad he had to stay at the home.  So I decided to do it... 4 hours a night, 2 days a week.  So your faked outrage over the handicap spot is pretty easy to spot as a red herring in this thread.
> I've never been arrested or spent a day in jail.
> 
> Sucks when people you want to hate and argue with aren't the bad people you want to make them out to be doesn't it?



"Faked outrage?"
You have no fucking CLUE what outrages me.

If you did that voluntarily just to benefit others then that was commendable.

I don't want to hate anyone.  But again, answer the question please.

Why did you laugh when I came to the defense of handicapped people?  Was it just a matter of your not comprehending the context?  Or were you so wrapped up in the fact that a white man shot a black man?


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh no?  My high school friends uncle was handicapped so bad he had to stay at the home.  So I decided to do it... 4 hours a night, 2 days a week.  So your faked outrage over the handicap spot is pretty easy to spot as a red herring in this thread.
> I've never been arrested or spent a day in jail.
> 
> Sucks when people you want to hate and argue with aren't the bad people you want to make them out to be doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Faked outrage?"
> You have no fucking CLUE what outrages me.
> 
> If you did that voluntarily just to benefit others then that was commendable.
> 
> I don't want to hate anyone.  But again, answer the question please.
> 
> Why did you laugh when I came to the defense of handicapped people?  Was it just a matter of your not comprehending the context?  Or were you so wrapped up in the fact that a white man shot a black man?
Click to expand...



I'm not laughing at the defense of handicap people.  I did answer your question.  I'm laughing at the fact an innocent man was shot and killed and that's what this thread is about, YET you want to minimize and victim blame here because of parking in a handicap space.  Parking in a handicap space is shitty... and a parking violation.  If we start killing people for vehicle violations we might as well just put cyanide in the water system and do a big Jim Jones across the entire country.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> If we start killing people for vehicle violations we might as well just put cyanide in the water system and do a big Jim Jones across the entire country.




Yes but he didnt shoot him for a parking violation.    He shot him for attacking him.  Get that part straight.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we start killing people for vehicle violations we might as well just put cyanide in the water system and do a big Jim Jones across the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but he didnt shoot him for a parking violation.    He shot him for attacking him.  Get that part straight.
Click to expand...


RIGHT?

Been trying to tell him that since my first post.   Is he that dense or what?

He apparently FLAT REFUSES to acknowledge that the man that got shot physically ATTACKED the shooter?   WTF?


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we start killing people for vehicle violations we might as well just put cyanide in the water system and do a big Jim Jones across the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but he didnt shoot him for a parking violation.    He shot him for attacking him.  Get that part straight.
Click to expand...



Attacking him?  If he had actually attacked him, he might still be alive today.  Instead he pushed him down away from his wife and then backed off... at which time he got shot and killed.


----------



## OODA_Loop

BasicHumanUnit said:


> He apparently FLAT REFUSES to acknowledge that the man that got shot physically ATTACKED the shooter?   WTF?



The Sheriff says the same thing and that Florida law says the same thing.  No Sheriff would make such a comment w/o consult of the State Atty.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> Attacking him?  If he had actually attacked him, he might still be alive today.  Instead he pushed him down away from his wife and then backed off... at which time he got shot and killed.



Uh, it's called ASSAULT & BATTERY by it's legal definition.

You're fucked up in your thinking.   Sorry to have to tell ya.

The guy who did the SHOVING is NOT INNOCENT.  He became a CRIMINAL the instant he laid hands on the other person....who by the way...had NOT touched him OR his wife first.

What he COULD have legally done is *asked* the man to back off.

WOW.  Just wow


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Attacking him?  If he had actually attacked him, he might still be alive today.  Instead he pushed him down away from his wife and then backed off... at which time he got shot and killed.



Not what happened.   The video is at the link the investigators say no evidence of threat from eye witnesses.

I posted 29 minutes of the Sheriffs own words.


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking him?  If he had actually attacked him, he might still be alive today.  Instead he pushed him down away from his wife and then backed off... at which time he got shot and killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, it's called ASSAULT & BATTERY by it's legal definition.
> 
> You're fucked up in your thinking.   Sorry to have to tell ya.
> 
> The guy who did the SHOVING is NOT INNOCENT.  He became a CRIMINAL the instant he laid hands on the other person....who by the way...had NOT touched him OR his wife first.
> 
> What he COULD have legally done is *asked* the man to back off.
> 
> WOW.  Just wow
Click to expand...



By the definition of the SYG law, the man that shoved the shooter did not break the law.  He was obviously defending the safety of his wife.  

Glad to see you only think the shooter fits under that.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> By the definition of the SYG law, the man that shoved the shooter did not break the law.  He was obviously defending the safety of his wife.
> 
> Glad to see you only think the shooter fits under that.



The cops think that too.  Don't forget them.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the definition of the SYG law, the man that shoved the shooter did not break the law.  He was obviously defending the safety of his wife.
> 
> Glad to see you only think the shooter fits under that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cops think that too.  Don't forget them.
Click to expand...



No they don't.  How come you didn't answer my question on the example of calling off work?


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> 
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are an idiot
> 
> but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll tackle any man screaming at my woman so badly that a patron runs into the store to tell someone about it, and the person screaming in her face like a jackass will likely be less of a caveman than the lot of your psychos that think that any physical altercation is just means for execution.
> 
> You dont belong in a civilized society.
Click to expand...


Cool so don't whine of you get your ass shot for doing it


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> No they don't.  How come you didn't answer my question on the example of calling off work?



Because I missed it in all of the unrealted static you post.   I assure I was not ducking you.

Post # ?

or please repeat the question.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self defense is assuring that no one can cause you grievous bodily harm or death
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  The guy was obviously not injured, so he had no right to shoot his attacker.
> 
> The guy who shoved him was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die for it.
Click to expand...




There is no stipulation in self defense law that you must be injured before you act

Tell me if a much larger guy blindsided you and knocked you to the ground would you not think you just might be in danger?

It's real easy to be an armchair quarterback


----------



## G.T.

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are an idiot
> 
> but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll tackle any man screaming at my woman so badly that a patron runs into the store to tell someone about it, and the person screaming in her face like a jackass will likely be less of a caveman than the lot of your psychos that think that any physical altercation is just means for execution.
> 
> You dont belong in a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool so don't whine of you get your ass shot for doing it
Click to expand...

Mental illness is not that widespread, depending on who you ask, so I think I'll be alright


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  How come you didn't answer my question on the example of calling off work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I missed in all the unrealted static you post.   I assure I was not ducking you.
> 
> Post # ?
> 
> or please repeat the question.
Click to expand...



If your work has a policy that if you miss work or are late you need to have an excuse.

The next day you come in late, and you tell them it is because you were arguing with people online and lost track of time.

Do you think they are going to not punish you since you had an excuse?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.
> 
> The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did he know the shooter was even out there?  Assume much?
Click to expand...


Everyone obviously heard the guy yelling

and I'm sure the woman in the car had a cell phone

The store owner said he was there all the time but yet he never got the guy kicked off the property


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> If your work has a policy that if you miss work or are late you need to have an excuse.
> 
> The next day you come in late, and you tell them it is because you were arguing with people online and lost track of time.
> 
> Do you think they are going to not punish you since you had an excuse?



They would question the validity of my excuse.


----------



## Skull Pilot

G.T. said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> 
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are an idiot
> 
> but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll tackle any man screaming at my woman so badly that a patron runs into the store to tell someone about it, and the person screaming in her face like a jackass will likely be less of a caveman than the lot of your psychos that think that any physical altercation is just means for execution.
> 
> You dont belong in a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool so don't whine of you get your ass shot for doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mental illness is not that widespread, depending on who you ask, so I think I'll be alright
Click to expand...


Time will tell

As long as you don't whine if you get shot IDGAF


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your work has a policy that if you miss work or are late you need to have an excuse.
> 
> The next day you come in late, and you tell them it is because you were arguing with people online and lost track of time.
> 
> Do you think they are going to not punish you since you had an excuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They would question the validity of my excuse.
Click to expand...


But why?  You fit within the policy by giving them an excuse.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Skull Pilot said:


> Everyone obviously heard the guy yelling
> 
> and I'm sure the woman in the car had a cell phone
> 
> The store owner said he was there all the time but yet he never got the guy kicked off the property



The guy never gets within three feet of the window and makes no aggressive moves.   Eyewitnesses claimed there was no threats just arguing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking out your ass again? Focal length?  Hilarious!
> 
> You take an approximate measurement, such as the human foot, which we know is roughly about a foot in length and then compare that to the distance involved.  Its middle school math, you simpleton!
Click to expand...


you do know that a wide angle lens distorts the ratios of the image don;t you?

The angle the camera is mounted can also distort the image

and neither the distance of the camera from the person nor the angle of the mount is known

IOW it's a fucking guess


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> But why?  You fit within the policy by giving them an excuse.



But not any excuse will do.  Just like this case and SYG.   You go hands on aggressively - your excuses are limited.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?
Click to expand...


Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?


----------



## G.T.

Skull Pilot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll gladly expect that because most humans arent unga bunga cavemen and can use rational force versus death for a shove.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an idiot
> 
> but hey go ahead and tackle everyone you see  and see what happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll tackle any man screaming at my woman so badly that a patron runs into the store to tell someone about it, and the person screaming in her face like a jackass will likely be less of a caveman than the lot of your psychos that think that any physical altercation is just means for execution.
> 
> You dont belong in a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool so don't whine of you get your ass shot for doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mental illness is not that widespread, depending on who you ask, so I think I'll be alright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell
> 
> As long as you don't whine if you get shot IDGAF
Click to expand...

Its ok if you give a fuck, i wont tell anyone bro


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why?  You fit within the policy by giving them an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not any excuse will do.  Just like this case and SYG.   You go hands on aggressively - your excuses are limited.
Click to expand...


Nope, your job said you needed to have an excuse.  According to you, your boss's hands are tied and you shouldn't get in trouble.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away he was
> 
> and it's real easy to step back then step forward again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So sad to sit here and listen to you try to make excuses.  You know you can teach yourself how to figure this shit out, that unless you lack the capability to learn.
Click to expand...


Like I said let's see your math and make sure you account for all your assumptions


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Nope, your job said you needed to have an excuse.  According to you, your boss's hands are tied and you shouldn't get in trouble.



So bring in for landing for me.....tie that to this case ?


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
Click to expand...


It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.

Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, your job said you needed to have an excuse.  According to you, your boss's hands are tied and you shouldn't get in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So bring in for landing for me.....tie that to this case ?
Click to expand...


If your work rules are you need an excuse... then why did you just say your boss would have to determine if it was a good one?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TBH, any moron who posts one meme a dozen times is an idiot to begin with.
> With that out of the way.....
> 
> Innocent?  You don't consider assault & battery a crime?
> 
> How the fuck was the guy who did the shoving "innocent".
> What the hell is your problem?
> 
> Not only that, they could have deprived some poor handicapped person a place to park conveniently.   And the fuckwads already admitted they do it all the time.
> 
> You're probably defending them because YOU do the same shit.
> Maybe this is your Maxine Waters side coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?
Click to expand...

Only teen aged girls and fags use emojis


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
Click to expand...


momentum

He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue

Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye

Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> If your work rules are you need an excuse... then why did you just say your boss would have to determine if it was a good one?



Because my work wont accept any excuse just like law enforcement in this case,

Once again,   please show the relevance of this to the case at hand.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we start killing people for vehicle violations we might as well just put cyanide in the water system and do a big Jim Jones across the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but he didnt shoot him for a parking violation.    He shot him for attacking him.  Get that part straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking him?  If he had actually attacked him, he might still be alive today.  Instead he pushed him down away from his wife and then backed off... at which time he got shot and killed.
Click to expand...


He committed assault 
Period


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
Click to expand...


Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?


----------



## Flash

There were only two crimes committed.

1.  The minor crime of parking in a handicap space without authorization.

2.  The much serious crime of assault and battery

Both by the victim and his family.

Maybe the victim would be alive today if he had just followed the law.

Dumbass!


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your work rules are you need an excuse... then why did you just say your boss would have to determine if it was a good one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because my work wont accept any excuse just like law enforcement in this case,
> 
> Once again,   please show the relevance of this to the case at hand.
Click to expand...


You just got owned on your argument.  

The sheriff HAS to accept his defense because it fits within the "bookends" of the SYG defense, BUT like the sheriff said, he has to present the evidence to the prosecutor because the sheriff doesn't MAKE THE DECISION.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
Click to expand...


so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?

He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TBH, any moron who posts one meme a dozen times is an idiot to begin with.
> With that out of the way.....
> 
> Innocent?  You don't consider assault & battery a crime?
> 
> How the fuck was the guy who did the shoving "innocent".
> What the hell is your problem?
> 
> Not only that, they could have deprived some poor handicapped person a place to park conveniently.   And the fuckwads already admitted they do it all the time.
> 
> You're probably defending them because YOU do the same shit.
> Maybe this is your Maxine Waters side coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only teen aged girls and fags use emojis
Click to expand...


flacaltenn   check this out.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TBH, any moron who posts one meme a dozen times is an idiot to begin with.
> With that out of the way.....
> 
> Innocent?  You don't consider assault & battery a crime?
> 
> How the fuck was the guy who did the shoving "innocent".
> What the hell is your problem?
> 
> Not only that, they could have deprived some poor handicapped person a place to park conveniently.   And the fuckwads already admitted they do it all the time.
> 
> You're probably defending them because YOU do the same shit.
> Maybe this is your Maxine Waters side coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only teen aged girls and fags use emojis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> flacaltenn   check this out.
Click to expand...

thank you for proving my point


----------



## Lewdog

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
Click to expand...


No he was incapable of still being a threat of imminent death to the shooter when he got shot.  He was out of striking distance and still moving backwards.  The shooter could of just stopped with when he pulled out his gun.  If the victim then started moving back TOWARDS him, then it would be a SYG defense.  Fact is he didn't and the shooter shot him while he was still moving BACKWARDS.


----------



## Lewdog

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TBH, any moron who posts one meme a dozen times is an idiot to begin with.
> With that out of the way.....
> 
> Innocent?  You don't consider assault & battery a crime?
> 
> How the fuck was the guy who did the shoving "innocent".
> What the hell is your problem?
> 
> Not only that, they could have deprived some poor handicapped person a place to park conveniently.   And the fuckwads already admitted they do it all the time.
> 
> You're probably defending them because YOU do the same shit.
> Maybe this is your Maxine Waters side coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only teen aged girls and fags use emojis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> flacaltenn   check this out.
Click to expand...


Yeah I think it is funny you just said that, which wasn't directed at me, but all people that use them which includes flacaltenn  who I just paged to the thread.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he was incapable of still being a threat of imminent death to the shooter when he got shot.  He was out of striking distance and still moving backwards.  The shooter could of just stopped with when he pulled out his gun.  If the victim then started moving back TOWARDS him, then it would be a SYG defense.  Fact is he didn't and the shooter shot him while he was still moving BACKWARDS.
Click to expand...


He was not out of striking distance,

He was a few feet away and he was plenty close enough to strike again.

And the guy who shot him was just violently assaulted and he was not wrong to believe he was in danger


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lewdog said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  An innocent man was shot and killed and you are trying to deflect to parking in a handicap spot as an argument.  That's fucking pathetic.  No one is arguing if it is ok for a person who is not handicapped to park in a handicap spot.  NO ONE.  But by you trying to make that the focus of this thread is fucking pathetic.  That's why I am laughing at you.  Now you are trying to go off topic again by saying I'm following you for TWO responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TBH, any moron who posts one meme a dozen times is an idiot to begin with.
> With that out of the way.....
> 
> Innocent?  You don't consider assault & battery a crime?
> 
> How the fuck was the guy who did the shoving "innocent".
> What the hell is your problem?
> 
> Not only that, they could have deprived some poor handicapped person a place to park conveniently.   And the fuckwads already admitted they do it all the time.
> 
> You're probably defending them because YOU do the same shit.
> Maybe this is your Maxine Waters side coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a meme.  How stupid do you have to be to not know the difference between an emoji/gif and a meme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only teen aged girls and fags use emojis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> flacaltenn   check this out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I think it is funny you just said that, which wasn't directed at me, but all people that use them which includes flacaltenn  who I just paged to the thread.
Click to expand...


Why would I care what fag uses emojis


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> The sheriff HAS to accept his defense because it fits within the "bookends" of the SYG defense, BUT like the sheriff said, he has to present the evidence to the prosecutor because the sheriff doesn't MAKE THE DECISION.



The evidence has to support the assertion for the Sheriff to accept his defense.

If the evidence shows unlawful self-defense the Sheriff arrests.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> Yeah I think it is funny you just said that, which wasn't directed at me, but all people that use them which includes flacaltenn  who I just paged to the thread.



When nothing's left....deflect......


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I think it is funny you just said that, which wasn't directed at me, but all people that use them which includes flacaltenn  who I just paged to the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When nothing's left....deflect......
Click to expand...


Irony


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheriff HAS to accept his defense because it fits within the "bookends" of the SYG defense, BUT like the sheriff said, he has to present the evidence to the prosecutor because the sheriff doesn't MAKE THE DECISION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence has to support the assertion for the Sheriff to accept his defense.
> 
> If the evidence shows unlawful self-defense the Sheriff arrests.
Click to expand...


Why do you cherry pick what the sheriff said?

He SPECIFICALLY said that he didn't like the fact that the man's actions fit within the bookends of the DYG law but he didn't like it?  He is very clearly stating that he thinks the guy was wrong and murdered the victim.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> Why do you cherry pick what the sheriff said?
> 
> He SPECIFICALLY said that he didn't like the fact that the man's actions fit within the bookends of the DYG law but he didn't like it?  He is very clearly stating that he thinks the guy was wrong and murdered the victim.



No he said the actions were lawful but he didn't necessarily support the law and his personal feeling on the law are irrelevant,   He has to uphold the law.


----------



## Lewdog

OODA_Loop said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you cherry pick what the sheriff said?
> 
> He SPECIFICALLY said that he didn't like the fact that the man's actions fit within the bookends of the DYG law but he didn't like it?  He is very clearly stating that he thinks the guy was wrong and murdered the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he said the actions were lawful but he didn't necessarily support the law and his personal feeling on the law are irrelevant,   He has to uphold the law.
Click to expand...


No, not what he said.  I'll sure be glad when the prosecutor puts out his statement that he is going to indict this guy and get this over with.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> Irony



There is no irony.
You were asked simple questions several times by several people and you avoided answering or gave irrelevant, stupid answers each time.

And don't celebrate until the indictment is actually handed down....if that happens.

Obviously you've already convicted the man in your own mind regardless of the facts or of what happens.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lewdog said:


> No, not what he said.  I'll sure be glad when the prosecutor puts out his statement that he is going to indict this guy and get this over with.



It is what he said...._this is within the bookends of the law._  No arrest. No charges.

The Sheriff laid out and argued the defense.  There is no doubt the sheriff sought counsel before hand.

Did you watch the press conference ?


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no irony.
> You were asked simple questions several times by several people and you avoided answering or gave irrelevant, stupid answers each time.
> 
> And don't celebrate until the indictment is actually handed down....if that happens.
> 
> Obviously you've already convicted the man in your own mind regardless of what happens.
Click to expand...


Really what questions did I not answer?  

OMG are you following me in this thread trolling my posts!?!?!?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> Really what questions did I not answer?
> OMG are you following me in this thread trolling my posts!?!?!?



No jackass.
When I post 35 EMOJI's in the same post, then I'll be like you....a trolling imbecile.
Hold your breath

Until then, I'm just discussing the topic......try it


btw...did you look up Assault & Battery yet?   You should.
You don't know a DAMN thing about crime and the law.
But your mouth runs like it's got diarrhea.


----------



## Rambunctious

I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...imo


----------



## Lewdog

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really what questions did I not answer?
> OMG are you following me in this thread trolling my posts!?!?!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No jackass.
> When I post 35 EMOJI's in the same post, then I'll be like you....a trolling imbecile.
> Hold your breath
> 
> Until then, I'm just discussing the topic......try it
> 
> 
> btw...did you look up Assault & Battery yet?   You should.
> You don't know a DAMN thing about crime and the law.
Click to expand...



When you make stupid ass comments yeah you deserve 30 emoji responses.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Rambunctious said:


> I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...



He thought he did.   And as the Sheriff said _that's all that mattered._


----------



## Flash

BasicHumanUnit said:


> [Q
> 
> Obviously you've already convicted the man in your own mind regardless of the facts or of what happens.




Probably because the "victim" was Black and the shooter was White.

If it had been the other way around Moon Bats like him would be claiming it was justified.

If it was Black on Black, like most shootings in this country, then the Moon Bats would have ignored it.  Just like they ignore all Black on Black and Black on White crimes.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lewdog said:


> When you make stupid ass comments yeah you deserve 30 emoji responses.



Or so say snowflakes like you.
And if that were true, most of your posts would be receiving hundreds of emoji's if that were the case.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Flash said:


> Probably because the "victim" was Black and the shooter was White.
> If it had been the other way around Moon Bats like him would be claiming it was justified.
> If it was Black on Black, like most shootings in this country, then the Moon Bats would have ignored it.  Just like they ignore all Black on Black and Black on White crimes.



Yeah, I'm assuming he's black and a racist

Especially since he insists the moron who did the shoving "dint do nuffin"


----------



## kaz

Lewdog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you brought it up for a specific reason.  You're full of shit.  The Constitution doesn't dictate interactions between citizens and it doesn't empower the Federal government to enforce it's own limits on citizens.  It just doesn't.  You brought up the Constitution in a way that demonstrated that you have zero grasp of what the Constitution even is.  It limits the power of government.  Period
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And despite me telling you  1,000 times I'm not saying the Constitution is for LAWS between person and person, you bring it up again.  You realize you are just as bad as the people you just told you are done arguing with because they won't listen?
Click to expand...


Word parsing.  You said if you don't believe Constitutional laws apply between person and person, you don't believe in the Constitution


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.  I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.
> 
> I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment.  I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault.  Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle.  They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it.
> 
> Shooting to protect your own safety is not punishment for a crime
Click to expand...


All I can tell you is that growing up in southwest Michigan is very different than wherever you're from.

1)  We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification.  Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously.  No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all.  That's begging for a shooting

2)  If we're going to stretch rule one, it's far more likely to happen protecting our family.  We might let you embarrass us even and we walk away.  But you threaten our families like this guy did and that we will always stand up for them  We rate protecting our families ABOVE protecting ourselves.  You don't consider protecting your family a factor or that it's even your job

Entirely different worlds.  Whatever


----------



## Lewdog

kaz said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you brought it up for a specific reason.  You're full of shit.  The Constitution doesn't dictate interactions between citizens and it doesn't empower the Federal government to enforce it's own limits on citizens.  It just doesn't.  You brought up the Constitution in a way that demonstrated that you have zero grasp of what the Constitution even is.  It limits the power of government.  Period
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And despite me telling you  1,000 times I'm not saying the Constitution is for LAWS between person and person, you bring it up again.  You realize you are just as bad as the people you just told you are done arguing with because they won't listen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word parsing.  You said if you don't believe Constitutional laws apply between person and person, you don't believe in the Constitution
Click to expand...


No, that's not what I said at all.  Why you continue to argue that I have no clue.  Not once in this entire thread have I said the Constitution covers how a person deals with another person.  Not one single time.  Do you know what the word principle means?


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> 1)  We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification.  Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously.  No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all.  That's begging for a shooting




The investigation revealed he looked at her car for tags or placard and she got indignant.    Eyewitness say there was no threat.
He was well away from car.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:



The shooter can go fuck himself.  Completely and totally unjustified, in fact he provoked the attack.


----------



## OODA_Loop

CrusaderFrank said:


> The shooter can go fuck himself.  Completely and totally unjustified, in fact he provoked the attack.



Evidence does not support this.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
Click to expand...

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.


----------



## beagle9

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.
> 
> The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the victim did in the past, in this attack he was the one physically assaulted ......
Click to expand...

If he set up the attack, then it will matter.


----------



## kaz

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
Click to expand...


Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?

Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.

The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.

The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The wife probably still fears for her safety


----------



## beagle9

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification.  Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously.  No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all.  That's begging for a shooting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The investigation revealed he looked at her car for tags or placard and she got indignant.    Eyewitness say there was no threat.
> He was well away from car.
Click to expand...

He's not a cop, and he shouldn't have been looking at anything unless he had no where else to park, and he was actually handicapped himself. This bullcrap of playing cop with a gun by super nerd heroes needs to end. The guy should be investigated, and then charged if found responsible for the situation. That's what appeals are for, and the family should appeal until further review of the case is made.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OODA_Loop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter can go fuck himself.  Completely and totally unjustified, in fact he provoked the attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence does not support this.
Click to expand...


Drejka should be charged with premeditated murder.


----------



## beagle9

kaz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?
> 
> Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.
> 
> The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.
> 
> The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one
Click to expand...

Who are you asking your question too ??

Best go back and read my post, and then check the name I directed it too.


----------



## kaz

beagle9 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> 
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?
> 
> Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.
> 
> The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.
> 
> The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you asking your question too ??
> 
> Best go back and read my post, and then check the name I directed it too.
Click to expand...


The first line?  I was making fun of him.  That was unclear other than the rest of the post agreed with you


----------



## Vastator

kaz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?
> 
> Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.
> 
> The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.
> 
> The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one
Click to expand...

There is so much “wrong” with this post, it’s hard to know where to begin. So I guess the beginning will have to do.
.
You say...
“Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.”
.
Okay; his distance at the time of the shooting is no surety of the victims safety, nor the intent of the aggressor. Further more the victim has no way of knowing if the assailant has finished his assault, or whether he is armed. And nether does anyone else until the dust settles. As for continuing to refer to the aggressor as the victim, is flagrantly dishonest. Simply watching the video, and pressing pause at the moment the first crime is committed is enough to dispense with this fallacy.
.
Then you say...
“He just wanted the psycho away from his family.”
Firstly there is nothing to suggest the victim is “psycho”. This is mere hyperbole. The hyperbole is necessary to justify, and to continue the false narrative. Furthermore if all he wanted was to get him away from his family (even though they are in public, and she felt plenty safe enough to leave her secured vehicle), he had countless other options besides committing a blind sided assault on a man speaking in a manner he didn’t like. Heretofore, even now no claim is made, even by the woman, that the victim threatened her.
.
Then you said...
“If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened”
Firstly he isn’t a murderer by all objective evidence, nor has he even been charged as such, less still convicted. This is more of that hyperbole your narrative requires to keep the story focused on the audiences feelings, and to distract from the facts. It’s rather unbecoming as well given the serious nature of the subject matter.
As for him approaching the vehicle to get a tag number when he saw the parking violation... He was perfectly within his rights to do so, and didn’t require anyone’s consent, or blessing. Even if the woman, assailant, or the readers of this thread don’t like it. One could just as easily see how this would never have happened if she had parked in the correct spot. Yet your rather silent on that aspect. I get it. It’s not conducive to the narrative.
.
Then you go on to say...

“The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business”.
.
Lots going wrong here... First of all it’s improbable that the victim knew the relationships of each person to the other, nor was it even relevant to what he was doing by observing with the intent to report the parking violation. But worse yet is the acceptance of the assailants violent act, under the guise of “protecting”... well... anyone. To date no threat to any of the individuals in this story has been documented. And no matter how badly this twisted narrative requires “language one doesn’t approve of, in a tone they don’t like” to be tantamount to an eminent threat. It simply isn’t the case. And the police have recognized such.
. 
But the most grievous, and irresponsible of all; is this one...
.
“The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one”
.
This last statement is pure fabrication supported by no facts whatsoever, and is absurd at face value alone. If you have evidence that the victim actively altered the environment, in order to deceive someone, and therefore “tricking” them into violating the law, in order to carry out some heinous act. You need to bring this evidence to the proper authorities. Because that’s a game changer. But hard to do when the woman admits she parks in spaces in this manner frequently. And how he manipulated the assailant into blindsiding him, is a feat of calculated psychological manipulation never before seen. This set-up, would be more complex than any Hollywood thriller. As for it being murder one? It’s not even close. Hell... The police and DA haven’t even seen enough misconduct on the victims part to bring even a single charge. Much less “Murder one”.
.
This incident should serve as a sobering and memorable object lesson for all the boards would be street lawyers, and white knights. Just because you think you know the law doesn’t mean you do. Even if you repeatedly misuse legal terminology. And just because you feel you’re in the right; doesn’t mean you are legally speaking.
Ohh and one more thing. Just because you think you got the drop on someone, and believe you will get away with assaulting them, or even come out on top... Doesn’t mean that is what’s really going to happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.




Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense.  No charges.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said is it was self-defense.  No charges.
Click to expand...

So far.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> So far.



Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?

No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Sheriff may well have made those statements without consulting the DA.

We will see.


----------



## Vastator

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
Click to expand...

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter.  The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.

Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Vastator said:


> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.



Thus the reason for SYG laws.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter.  The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.
> 
> Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.



Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense


----------



## JakeStarkey

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter.  The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.
> 
> Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense
Click to expand...

The evidence does show it, and the investigators (how many) are not the ones who have the final say.

The family can go to the feds for charges if necessary.


----------



## Vastator

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter.  The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.
> 
> Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense
Click to expand...

The fact that “verbally assaulted” is a hyperbolic term, that has no legal value, which means it can’t be used as a defense for physically assaulting someone doesn’t help either...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vastator said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter.  The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.
> 
> Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that “verbally assaulted” is a hyperbolic term, that has no legal value, which means it can’t be used as a defense for physically assaulting someone doesn’t help either...
Click to expand...

Is that opinion or the law in that state.  The counter argument can be made that the murdered was in fear that his was about to be physically assaulted.


----------



## Lewdog

Vastator said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter.  The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.
> 
> Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that “verbally assaulted” is a hyperbolic term, that has no legal value, which means it can’t be used as a defense for physically assaulting someone doesn’t help either...
Click to expand...



Actually there is a crime you can make from yelling at someone.

Terroristic Threat Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> Is that opinion or the law in that state.  The counter argument can be made that the murdered was in fear that his was about to be physically assaulted.



Evidence doesn't support that.  If it did different story.


----------



## Vastator

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that opinion or the law in that state.  The counter argument can be made that the murdered was in fear that his was about to be physically assaulted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence doesn't support that.  If it did different story.
Click to expand...

Nor does eyewitness testimony. No threat heretofore has been claimed to have been made by the victim.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beginning innings, people   I know your feelz are helping you with this

If this happened in Texas, there would be a good chance friends of the family would settle the matter.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> beginning innings, people



You fail to see their isn't evidence.  Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beginning innings, people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see their isn't evidence.  Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.
Click to expand...

Either a FL court will determine that, or a federal court may get involved.


----------



## MacTheKnife

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beginning innings, people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see their isn't evidence.  Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either a FL court will determine that, or a federal court may get involved.
Click to expand...


The ball game has changed.  Just on the news in Clearwater, Fl, the victim is black.


----------



## MacTheKnife

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beginning innings, people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see their isn't evidence.  Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.
Click to expand...


A video is evidence.  It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury.  In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life.  Couple those  elements together  a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life.  All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life.  Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.

 They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense.  The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense.  The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again.  For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life.  But now it has been revealed the victim  was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting.  Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whelp --- once again this is what gun fetishism and its psycho companion the idea that the answer to every situation is to shoot at it, leads to.  As if we hadn't figured it out eons ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with millions of responsible gun owners, so don't even go there with the anti-gun bullcrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummmm yyyyeah.  A shooting has nothing to do with guns.  AAAlllll righty then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has to do with guns sure, but not in the way you want to go with it. We are tired of the bullcrap where every incident is somehow tied in with the citizens right to bear arms on whole.  It's time to go after the criminals and their guns, and yes even these weirdo's that somehow get through the wire, and leave the level minded good armed citizens alone. We need good armed citizens, because the reaction times of the police isn't sufficient enough.
Click to expand...


I posted nothing about anybody's "rights".  Go read it again.

Then read your last sentence above.  Then put the two together.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.
> 
> Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.
> 
> He pulled it alright..
> 
> the man stepped the fuck back, alright..
> 
> and was shot as he did so.
> 
> THATS a bitch move, and its murder.
> 
> Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..
> 
> dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  The guy was obviously not injured, so he had no right to shoot his attacker.
> 
> The guy who shoved him was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no stipulation in self defense law that you must be injured before you act
> 
> Tell me if a much larger guy blindsided you and knocked you to the ground would you not think you just might be in danger?
> 
> It's real easy to be an armchair quarterback
Click to expand...


No armchair quarterbacking involved.  You don't even rate a quarter.

When he was not injured the threat had ended at which point he drew his weapon and fired.  He was not in danger at that moment.  Had the assailant continued his attack, he would have been justified in shooting.

Have you looked at the voting?  What percentage does it take before you realize that you are on the wrong side of the discussion?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.
> 
> The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did he know the shooter was even out there?  Assume much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone obviously heard the guy yelling
> 
> and I'm sure the woman in the car had a cell phone
> 
> The store owner said he was there all the time but yet he never got the guy kicked off the property
Click to expand...


Until the other customer came in and told him, how could he know the shooter was there?

I think your assumptions are getting in the way of you thinking logically.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

MacTheKnife said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beginning innings, people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see their isn't evidence.  Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A video is evidence.  It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury.  In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life.  Couple those  elements together  a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life.  All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life.  Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.
> 
> They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense.  The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense.  The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again.  For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life.  But now it has been revealed the victim  was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting.  Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.
Click to expand...


Old man?  Where did you get that idea?  He was not THAT old.  If I remember correctly he is 47.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that far to tell.  It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is.  If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called spacial recognition.  It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out.  I's sorry you don't have it.  You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.
> 
> You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out.  I've just always been able to do it.  That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know the focal length of the lens.  It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person
> 
> IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking out your ass again? Focal length?  Hilarious!
> 
> You take an approximate measurement, such as the human foot, which we know is roughly about a foot in length and then compare that to the distance involved.  Its middle school math, you simpleton!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do know that a wide angle lens distorts the ratios of the image don;t you?
> 
> The angle the camera is mounted can also distort the image
> 
> and neither the distance of the camera from the person nor the angle of the mount is known
> 
> IOW it's a fucking guess
Click to expand...


The video is accurate enough.  Stop making BS excuses for your ignorant responses.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am?  How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
Click to expand...


He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him?  If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He thought he did.   And as the Sheriff said _that's all that mattered._
Click to expand...


How many times are you going to post that lie?  That's all that mattered to the Sheriff.  That is what he meant.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?
> 
> No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.
Click to expand...


Really?

Did you sleep through the entire Trayvon Martin case?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Vastator said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
Click to expand...


Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

MacTheKnife said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beginning innings, people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see their isn't evidence.  Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A video is evidence.  It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury.  In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life.  Couple those  elements together  a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life.  All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life.  Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.
> 
> They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense.  The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense.  The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again.  For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life.  But now it has been revealed the victim  was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting.  Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.
Click to expand...


He is NOT an old man, unless of course you are 12 and think everyone over 20 is ancient..


----------



## Lewdog

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.
Click to expand...



Sadly it only takes one idiot like a few in this thread to hold up the court case.


----------



## MacTheKnife

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beginning innings, people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see their isn't evidence.  Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A video is evidence.  It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury.  In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life.  Couple those  elements together  a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life.  All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life.  Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.
> 
> They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense.  The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense.  The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again.  For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life.  But now it has been revealed the victim  was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting.  Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old man?  Where did you get that idea?  He was not THAT old.  If I remember correctly he is 47.
Click to expand...


hmmmmm he looks a lot older than that.


----------



## MacTheKnife

Lewdog said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly it only takes one idiot like a few in this thread to hold up the court case.
Click to expand...


The media is trying to stir things up but without eric holder and obama to put pressure on the local authorities it will be interesting to see how this turns out.


----------



## MacTheKnife

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.
Click to expand...

  What numbers?


----------



## MacTheKnife

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He thought he did.   And as the Sheriff said _that's all that mattered._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times are you going to post that lie?  That's all that mattered to the Sheriff.  That is what he meant.
Click to expand...


Well we know the shooter was assaulted and we know the shooter said he was in fear of his life.  Key or essential elements to using deadly force in self defense.  The only question is was it a reasonable fear and the law does require that.  With the video as evidence I do not think a jury will convict the shooter even if he is charged and brought to trial.  Which so far seems very doubtful.  I do not think they will reverse their decision not to charge unless a lot of pressure is brought to bear aka riots, burnings etc.  Look for trouble in St. Petersburg just down the road...lots of radicals down there.


----------



## MacTheKnife

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?
> 
> No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Did you sleep through the entire Trayvon Martin case?
Click to expand...


If there had been a video in the Trayvon case there would have been no trial.  Political pressure was brought to bear on local authorities...remember Obama and eric holder?  The media was caught in lie after lie.  Large segments of the public ate it up especially the minorities but in a court of law where the actual facts of the case were presented that was a whole different story.  Funni how facts and the truth tends to over come rumors,distoritions, political pessure and the myth of black victimhood.  Hats offs to the jurors, despite all the pressure and even death threats they got, they did an honest assessment of the facts and being honorable and honest folks they had no choice but to render a not guilty verdict.


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't share the same principle.  No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens.  It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens.  It's a limit on government power.
> 
> For example, government cannot restrict free speech.  However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television.  No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens.  It's a horrible argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle?  It's pretty simple.  In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing.  The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things.  Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution.  You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point.  The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens.  The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power.  You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another.  Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are.  Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get it.
> 
> Shooting to protect your own safety is not punishment for a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can tell you is that growing up in southwest Michigan is very different than wherever you're from.
> 
> 1)  We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification.  Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously.  No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all.  That's begging for a shooting
> 
> 2)  If we're going to stretch rule one, it's far more likely to happen protecting our family.  We might let you embarrass us even and we walk away.  But you threaten our families like this guy did and that we will always stand up for them  We rate protecting our families ABOVE protecting ourselves.  You don't consider protecting your family a factor or that it's even your job
> 
> Entirely different worlds.  Whatever
Click to expand...


Your response has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.

Shooting in self defense is not punishment for a crime is what I said

How the fuck you got the idea that I want to shoot people from that statement is beyond me.

The vast majority of CCW permit holders will avoid situations that are potentially volatile

They don't pull their guns every time some asshole cuts them off or throws the bird at them even though you seem to think they do

There was no evidence that the assault victim in this instance threatened anyone the video of the police press conference confirmed that fact

I have stated my personal policy on carrying and using a weapon many times here and to sum it up I won't pull my weapon to protect anyone but myself or my wife I really don't give a fuck about anyone else


----------



## Skull Pilot

beagle9 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......
> 
> The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
Click to expand...

and you ignore the point of view of the guy who was blindsided and thrown to the ground

like I said it's easy to be an expert from a computer keyboard


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?
> 
> Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.
> 
> The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.
> 
> The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one
Click to expand...


Who was the first to commit an actual crime?

The assault happened first


----------



## JLW

The shooter engaged the victim's wife.  The victim then shoved the shooter away. The victim was walking away when shot.  This was nothing short of first degree murder.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it
> 
> The other guy was doing nothing but yelling
> 
> So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling
> 
> 
> 
> If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  The guy was obviously not injured, so he had no right to shoot his attacker.
> 
> The guy who shoved him was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no stipulation in self defense law that you must be injured before you act
> 
> Tell me if a much larger guy blindsided you and knocked you to the ground would you not think you just might be in danger?
> 
> It's real easy to be an armchair quarterback
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No armchair quarterbacking involved.  You don't even rate a quarter.
> 
> When he was not injured the threat had ended at which point he drew his weapon and fired.  He was not in danger at that moment.  Had the assailant continued his attack, he would have been justified in shooting.
> 
> Have you looked at the voting?  What percentage does it take before you realize that you are on the wrong side of the discussion?
Click to expand...

There is no stipulation in self defense that you must be injured before you act

And I wonder if after being blindsided by a guy bigger than you and thrown hard to the ground if you might not feel your safety was in jeopardy

It's easy to be an expert from a computer keyboard.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Johnlaw said:


> The shooter engaged the victim's wife.  The victim then shoved the shooter away, The victim was walking away when shot.  This was nothing short of first degree murder.


He yelled at her that's all he did

and it wasn't anywhere near first degree murder since he fired AFTER he was assaulted and FYI He was the only person who was the victim of a crime here.

Yelling at a person is not a crime
Assault and battery are crimes


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...
> 
> Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.
> 
> The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did he know the shooter was even out there?  Assume much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone obviously heard the guy yelling
> 
> and I'm sure the woman in the car had a cell phone
> 
> The store owner said he was there all the time but yet he never got the guy kicked off the property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until the other customer came in and told him, how could he know the shooter was there?
> 
> I think your assumptions are getting in the way of you thinking logically.
Click to expand...


pot kettle Mr armchair quarterback


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him?  If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!
Click to expand...

He certainly was close enough to

but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else

and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger

you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?

Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.


----------



## JLW

Skull Pilot said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter engaged the victim's wife.  The victim then shoved the shooter away, The victim was walking away when shot.  This was nothing short of first degree murder.
> 
> 
> 
> He yelled at her that's all he did
> 
> and it wasn't anywhere near first degree murder since he fired AFTER he was assaulted and FYI He was the only person who was the victim of a crime here.
> 
> Yelling at a person is not a crime
> Assault and battery are crimes
Click to expand...

A few corrections.  "Assault" is verbally accosting  someone and that is a crime.  That is what the shooter was doing to the victim's wife when the victim shoved the shooter.

But according to your logic, if a cad  hits on another's wife, and the husband  punches the cad in the nose, the cad can pull out a gun and kill the husband.  That may be the law in Florida.  It is however nothing short of legalized murder.

Additionally, in this case, the victim was clearly turning away.  The shooter should be charged with murder, first and second degree, along with manslaughter.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

MacTheKnife said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What numbers?
Click to expand...


The numbers of votes at the top of the page!  Looks like 83.7% would convict.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no hard to get a good idea of.  There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that.  Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet.  Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.
> 
> Try a little experiment.  Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall.  Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall.  Now start to back up and try punching the wall.  I bet you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him?  If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was close enough to
> 
> but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else
> 
> and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger
> 
> you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?
> 
> Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.
Click to expand...


I'll bet I have more experience hand to hand than you realize.  You apparently are an expert in ass to mouth.  You do not shoot someone for pushing you down and possibly hurting your boo-boo!


----------



## Vastator

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The numbers of votes at the top of the page!  Looks like 83.7% would convict.
Click to expand...

In a jury 87% means a hung jury, therefore... no conviction. And that’s not even taking into account the defense removing the “feelings” of the viewers of the video, leaving them only with the facts of the case, as they directly pertain to the incident; and the law by which they are to judge those facts...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

MacTheKnife said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?
> 
> No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Did you sleep through the entire Trayvon Martin case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there had been a video in the Trayvon case there would have been no trial.  Political pressure was brought to bear on local authorities...remember Obama and eric holder?  The media was caught in lie after lie.  Large segments of the public ate it up especially the minorities but in a court of law where the actual facts of the case were presented that was a whole different story.  Funni how facts and the truth tends to over come rumors,distoritions, political pessure and the myth of black victimhood.  Hats offs to the jurors, despite all the pressure and even death threats they got, they did an honest assessment of the facts and being honorable and honest folks they had no choice but to render a not guilty verdict.
Click to expand...


The video is the reason why there will likely be a trial if there is any justice.  I think most of those people who find no fault with the shooter should see their optometrist TODAY!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Vastator said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> 
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The numbers of votes at the top of the page!  Looks like 83.7% would convict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a jury 87% means a hung jury, therefore... no conviction. And that’s not even taking into account the defense removing the “feelings” of the viewers of the video, leaving them only with the facts of the case, as they directly pertain to the incident; and the law by which they are to judge those facts...
Click to expand...


Your lack of knowledge of the law is only surpassed by your inability to reason that if you lock 12 people in a room, you will get a conviction.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

kaz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...
> 
> ... but ...
> 
> ... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy some perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?
> 
> Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.
> 
> The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.
> 
> The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one
Click to expand...

Ignorant nonsense. 

The legal standard is whether the person using deadly force as a means of self-defense perceived a threat to himself or others.

Your subjective perception is thankfully irrelevant.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> momentum
> 
> He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue
> 
> Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye
> 
> Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him?  If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was close enough to
> 
> but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else
> 
> and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger
> 
> you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?
> 
> Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet I have more experience hand to hand than you realize.  You apparently are an expert in ass to mouth.  You do not shoot someone for pushing you down and possibly hurting your boo-boo!
Click to expand...


No you shoot them if you fear for your safety

it's easy for an internet bad ass like you to say who should and shouldn't do this or that but you weren't the guy who got blindsided by a much bigger person were you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The numbers of votes at the top of the page!  Looks like 83.7% would convict.
Click to expand...

Only sheep care about public opinion


----------



## Skull Pilot

Johnlaw said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shooter engaged the victim's wife.  The victim then shoved the shooter away, The victim was walking away when shot.  This was nothing short of first degree murder.
> 
> 
> 
> He yelled at her that's all he did
> 
> and it wasn't anywhere near first degree murder since he fired AFTER he was assaulted and FYI He was the only person who was the victim of a crime here.
> 
> Yelling at a person is not a crime
> Assault and battery are crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few corrections.  "Assault" is verbally accosting  someone and that is a crime.  That is what the shooter was doing to the victim's wife when the victim shoved the shooter.
> 
> But according to your logic, if a cad  hits on another's wife, and the husband  punches the cad in the nose, the cad can pull out a gun and kill the husband.  That may be the law in Florida.  It is however nothing short of legalized murder.
> 
> Additionally, in this case, the victim was clearly turning away.  The shooter should be charged with murder, first and second degree, along with manslaughter.
Click to expand...


Assault is physically accosting someone or threatening the police said there was no evidence of any threats made by the victim of the only crime that took place , that of assault and battery

it is not against the law to yell at a person
And he wasn't turning away he was facing the guy he assaulted if he was turning away he would not have been shot in the chest


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Skull Pilot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS.  How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him?  If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was close enough to
> 
> but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else
> 
> and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger
> 
> you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?
> 
> Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet I have more experience hand to hand than you realize.  You apparently are an expert in ass to mouth.  You do not shoot someone for pushing you down and possibly hurting your boo-boo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you shoot them if you fear for your safety
> 
> it's easy for an internet bad ass like you to say who should and shouldn't do this or that but you weren't the guy who got blindsided by a much bigger person were you?
Click to expand...


Thank you for posting your picture!

Keep that attitude and you'll be sitting in a 6 by 8 for the rest of your life, or pushing up daisies because of your big mouth.  Karma is a bitch!

I am done with your idiocy.  You bore me.  I will waste no more time pointing out your lack of intelligence.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?
> 
> He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him?  If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He certainly was close enough to
> 
> but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else
> 
> and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger
> 
> you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?
> 
> Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet I have more experience hand to hand than you realize.  You apparently are an expert in ass to mouth.  You do not shoot someone for pushing you down and possibly hurting your boo-boo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you shoot them if you fear for your safety
> 
> it's easy for an internet bad ass like you to say who should and shouldn't do this or that but you weren't the guy who got blindsided by a much bigger person were you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting your picture!
> 
> Keep that attitude and you'll be sitting in a 6 by 8 for the rest of your life, or pushing up daisies because of your big mouth.  Karma is a bitch!
> 
> I am done with your idiocy.  You bore me.  I will waste no more time pointing out your lack of intelligence.
Click to expand...


Bye bye tough guy


----------



## JakeStarkey

Admiral is sweeping Skull's arguments away.  The video clearly shows the shooter verbally abusing the wife and whose attitude is one that is offering assault.  The murdered was protecting his wife from a bad guy with a gun, who killed him.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JakeStarkey said:


> Admiral is sweeping Skull's arguments away.  The video clearly shows the shooter verbally abusing the wife and whose attitude is one that is offering assault.  The murdered was protecting his wife from a bad guy with a gun, who killed him.


Yelling at someone is not a crime

Assault and battery are crimes


----------



## JoeMoma

Skull Pilot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral is sweeping Skull's arguments away.  The video clearly shows the shooter verbally abusing the wife and whose attitude is one that is offering assault.  The murdered was protecting his wife from a bad guy with a gun, who killed him.
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling at someone is not a crime
> 
> Assault and battery are crimes
Click to expand...

It could possibly be Public Disorderly Conduct.
Disorderly Conduct and Public Intoxication


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeMoma said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral is sweeping Skull's arguments away.  The video clearly shows the shooter verbally abusing the wife and whose attitude is one that is offering assault.  The murdered was protecting his wife from a bad guy with a gun, who killed him.
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling at someone is not a crime
> 
> Assault and battery are crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could possibly be Public Disorderly Conduct.
Click to expand...


victimless crime


----------



## JoeMoma

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral is sweeping Skull's arguments away.  The video clearly shows the shooter verbally abusing the wife and whose attitude is one that is offering assault.  The murdered was protecting his wife from a bad guy with a gun, who killed him.
> 
> 
> 
> Yelling at someone is not a crime
> 
> Assault and battery are crimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could possibly be Public Disorderly Conduct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> victimless crime
Click to expand...

The person being yelled at would be a victim.  Other (orderly) people in the vicinity could also be victims.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> 
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?
> 
> Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.
> 
> The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.
> 
> The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> The legal standard is whether the person using deadly force as a means of self-defense perceived a threat to himself or others.
> 
> Your subjective perception is thankfully irrelevant.
Click to expand...


So to


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oversimplification
> 
> If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?
> 
> 
> 
> Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really.  If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?
> 
> And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.
> 
> The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????
> 
> Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases.  Same with the cops abusing their authority.  The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you believe.  Me, or your lyin eyes?
> 
> Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.  He just wanted the psycho away from his family.  If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.
> 
> The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him.  Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.
> 
> The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him.  It's murder one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorant nonsense.
> 
> The legal standard is whether the person using deadly force as a means of self-defense perceived a threat to himself or others.
> 
> Your subjective perception is thankfully irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I didnt say anything about florida, you angry, bitter little man.  Figures you'd want to turn the streets into shooting galleries


----------



## charwin95

Vastator said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.
> 
> The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.
> 
> It's murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.
> 
> Said it was self-defense.  No charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.
Click to expand...


Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator. 
Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy? 
Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.


----------



## OODA_Loop

charwin95 said:


> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.




You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> The video clearly shows the shooter verbally abusing the wife and whose attitude is one that is offering assault.  The murdered was protecting his wife from a bad guy with a gun, who killed him.


 Not according to investigators.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There will be more, count on it.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> There will be more, count on it.



More how ?    The scene and investigation is closed,   Cops didn't arrest without sufficient evidence,   Where are you getting other evidence ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be more, count on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More how ?    The scene and investigation is closed,   Cops didn't arrest without sufficient evidence,   Where are you getting other evidence ?
Click to expand...

You are saying that new eyes will not look at it?  OK.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> You are saying that new eyes will not look at it?  OK.



What new eyes ?


----------



## Flash

"Ma Baby didndunutin".


Family, attorney question stand your ground ruling

*Family, attorney question stand your ground ruling in shooting death*

CLEARWATER, Fla. -- The family and attorney of a man shot and killed last week in a Clearwater parking lot dispute are upset that the shooter hasn't been charged.

Michael Drejka, 47, shot Markeis McGlockton, 28,  on Thursday outside a convenience store on Sunset Point Road.

At a Tuesday afternoon news conference, questions were raised about why the "stand your ground" law resulted in Drejka not being arrested.

The measure allows people to use deadly force if their lives are in danger.

The family's attorney, Michele Raynor, believes that law shouldn't have been applied in this case.

"This is not a stand your ground case. You meet deadly force with deadly force. There was no imminent danger that Mr. Drejka was going to die," said Attorney Michele Raynor.

According to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Drejka shot McGlockton as the two argued over the space and after Drejka was pushed to the ground.

"Any kind of law that allows a man to kill another one and doesn't even getting fingerprinted?" asked Markeis' father, Michael McGlockton.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Shooting in self defense is not punishment for a crime is what I said
> 
> How the fuck you got the idea that I want to shoot people from that statement is beyond me.



I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.

Sure, you say oh, no, you don't want to do that.  But you're calling that a justified shooting.  Sure you don't.  I would never want to live with having shot someone at all the rest of my life much less that I provoked them into it.

You've either never killed anything and have no idea what you're talking about or you're a sociopath that you believe that.


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.




You cant assault someone because they scream at you.  Or your wife,  Your kids,   Law in all 50 states


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant assault someone because they scream at you.  Or your wife,  Your kids,   Law in all 50 states
Click to expand...


That didn't contradict what I said, brainiac


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant assault someone because they scream at you.  Or your wife,  Your kids,   Law in all 50 states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That didn't contradict what I said, brainiac
Click to expand...


So you learned a lesson. Good.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant assault someone because they scream at you.  Or your wife,  Your kids,   Law in all 50 states
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  This case will be continued with new investigators.  Watch.  You can't be pushed to the ground and then have no threat to great bodily harm or death, yet shoot the pusher.  Does not work that way.


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said you want to shoot people because your story is that you can scream at someone's family then kill them if they touch you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant assault someone because they scream at you.  Or your wife,  Your kids,   Law in all 50 states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That didn't contradict what I said, brainiac
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you learned a lesson. Good.
Click to expand...


Going playground.  I'd say good move given the stupid crap you've come up with so far


----------



## OODA_Loop

kaz said:


> Going playground.  I'd say good move given the stupid crap you've come up with so far



What stupid crap specifically ?   Bring it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.   No state has verbal assault as grounds for physical assault.
> 
> Show me,  Dont tell me.
Click to expand...

This is the full statement in the next paragraph.  You cut it to snark a reply, a violation of the rules to slice and dice.  Do it again, and I will report it.  Nuts, I reported it anyway.  .

"Nonsense. This case will be continued with new investigators. Watch. You can't be pushed to the ground and then have no threat to great bodily harm or death, yet shoot the pusher. Does not work that way."

You ARE the one who said the 50 states don't have laws that make verbal assault as grounds for physical assault, yet you post no evidence, then demand I rebut your assertion.  Nonsense.  That is not how it works.  Must have hit a nerve on you.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> Nonsense.  This case will be continued with new investigators.  Watch.  You can't be pushed to the ground and then have no threat to great bodily harm or death, yet shoot the pusher.  Does not work that way.



So the investigating cops don't what they are doing or are they corrupt ? 

Think they made that decision and made recorded statements in a vacuum without counsel ?


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> You ARE the one who said the 50 states don't have laws that make verbal assault as grounds for physical assault, yet you post no evidence, then demand I rebut your assertion.  Nonsense.  That is not how it works.  Must have hit a nerve on you.



i cant post what doesn't exist.  Neither can you.  Thus your obfuscation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

So you don't have anything on the 50 states, do you?

You can find a secondary source of good repute that support your claim.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> This is the full statement in the next paragraph.  You cut it to snark a reply, a violation of the rules to slice and dice.  Do it again, and I will report it.  Nuts, I reported it anyway.  .



Show me the rule.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> So you don't have anything on the 50 states, do you?
> .



No the law doesn't exist thats the point.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is your assertion only, so that does not count.

Post a reputable secondary source that supports your assertion.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> That is your assertion only, so that does not count.
> .



Law doesn't exist.

Post a state law which allows physical assault to verbal.     Just one.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> This is the full statement in the next paragraph.  You cut it to snark a reply, a violation of the rules to slice and dice.  Do it again, and I will report it.  Nuts, I reported it anyway.  .




You don't even understand forum rules so we take your legal opinions with a grain of salt.

_*Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box or alter the member names in "link-back" text..*_


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> That is your assertion only, so that does not count.
> 
> Post a reputable secondary source that supports your assertion.




Cant post a law that doesn't exist. 

That is why you cant back up your claim that you can lawfully assault someone for words.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You certainly can post a reputable secondary source, but you won't 
do it, so your assertion fails on the face of it.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> You certainly can post a reputable secondary source, but you won't
> do it, so your assertion fails on the face of it.




A secondary source of a law that doesn't exist ?

What this all comes down to is you claimed you can lawfully assault someone for words and cant back it up.    

Patently false.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> You certainly can post a reputable secondary source, but you won't
> do it, so your assertion fails on the face of it.





*Legally speaking, does verbal antagonization ever justify physical assault?*





Cliff Gilley, J.D. Criminal Law & Intellectual Property Law, Seattle University School of Law (2000)

Answered Sep 25 2014 · Author has 15.6k answers and 29.9m answer views
Not under any self-defense law of which I'm aware.  Nearly all self-defense laws require a reasonable apprehension of harm for any justifiable use of force.  Mere verbal taunting is insufficient to meet this standard, unless there is other, extrinsic evidence of impending harm (such as a person wielding a knife, even if they haven't attempted to use it).

https://www.quora.com/Legally-speaking-does-verbal-antagonization-ever-justify-physical-assault


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you, Oodles.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you, Oodles.



Showing everyone who views this thread in perpetuity that you cant back up your words is thanks enough.


----------



## JakeStarkey

^^^^   

Bless your snarky heart.  You are welcome for allowing me to set the situation for you to step right into it.

 If someone got into your face and started screaming at you, you could argue you were in fear of imminent and serious bodily injury.

If verbal abuse was such as for the individual to believe they were the precursor to an attack. It is not necessary to wait till you are actually struck to defend yourself. Such as if a man with a gun screams abuse, its not necessary to wait till he shoots you. If unarmed he abuses you and then advances on you can strike first. Particularly if it is very clear running would place you at a disadvantage in defending yourself.

https://www.quora.com/Legally-speaking-does-verbal-antagonization-ever-justify-physical-assault


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> ^^^^ :roflmao:
> 
> If someone got into your face and started screaming at you, you could argue you were in fear of imminent and serious bodily injury.
> 
> If verbal abuse was such as for the individual to believe they were the precursor to an attack. It is not necessary to wait till you are actually struck to defend yourself. Such as if a man with a gun screams abuse, its not necessary to wait till he shoots you. If unarmed he abuses you and then advances on you can strike first. Particularly if it is very clear running would place you at a disadvantage in defending yourself.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Legally-speaking-does-verbal-antagonization-ever-justify-physical-assault



Someone with a gun is not "words" now is it?    Reach for some credibility. I don't blame you.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Not really.    There are 600 or so visitors who see these threads every hour who know the deal.

You were wrong and posted something totally off point.    Your posts lack any level of credibility to be taken as true debate.  

Fact remains _*you can not lawfully assault people for words absent a clear and present ability to inflict harm such as brandishing a gun or other weapon.*_

Or risk lethal self-defensive actions.

Ask Treyvon, Mike Brown or McGlocklin


----------



## JakeStarkey

You were forced to defend your assertion, you got smarmy, then you got smacked down.  That fact won't change. 

The point is this: was the shooter justified in murdering a man who struck him for verbally abusing his wife then stepped offering no further threat to the mean. In mitigation, even the man had been convicted of assault and battery, the judge probably would have entered a conviction but no penalty.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> You were forced to defend your assertion, you got smarmy, then you got smacked down.  That fact won't change.
> 
> The point is this: was the shooter justified in murdering a man who struck him for verbally abusing his wife then stepped offering no further threat to the mean. In mitigation, even the man had been convicted of assault and battery, the judge probably would have entered a conviction but no penalty.



The man effectuated lawful lethal self-defense within the _bookends of the law_ according to the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and investigators of Pinellas County.   Who also offered a categorical step by step summary of the relevant law and how the shooters actions specifically fell within his claim of lawful self-defense.   A claim so certain and well-supported for the shooter by the cops it had to be coordinated with the State Attorney. 

I defend my assertion with pride and joy every time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And that will be reviewed despite your pride and joy.

Have a good evening.  It's Dodgers baseball!


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> And that will be reviewed despite your pride and joy.
> 
> Have a good evening.  It's Dodgers baseball!


National league baseball is for bitches


----------



## OODA_Loop

> National league baseball is for bitches


No. I’m wrong.   I’m sorry.  I love ALL baseball.

I don’t want to mix that with this nonsense


----------



## MacTheKnife

JakeStarkey said:


> You were forced to defend your assertion, you got smarmy, then you got smacked down.  That fact won't change.
> 
> The point is this: was the shooter justified in murdering a man who struck him for verbally abusing his wife then stepped offering no further threat to the mean. In mitigation, even the man had been convicted of assault and battery, the judge probably would have entered a conviction but no penalty.



You have no idea what the shooter said to the wife.  He was well within his rights to talk to her about the fact they should not have parked in the handicap spot....the news has had reports on that down here...many people do it and this citizen was bold enough to tell the lady that.  they should not be parking in a handicap spot.
Thee is no evidence the shooter verbally abused the girlfriend.

To murder is a legal term and there is no relevancy for that term in this case.  What is relevant is that the shooter was justified to use deadly force based on the florida law of self defense backed up by the stand your ground law.  

It all happened very quickly as pointed out by the police investigator.  It is true  and you will see if you watch the video the black guy did take a step backward a mili-second before he got shot.  No case can be made that the shooter was aware of that.  The shooter said he was in fear of his life and he had  every right to be....certainly a reasonable fear in this case.    He was assaulted as in  knocked to the ground and had no way of knowing what  the black guy might do next.  He was on the ground and easy prey if the black guy wanted to continue the assault as in kick him in the head or whatever.

In hindsight everything is always 20/20 however in the real world when cases of assault like this happen.... one is forced to make decisions very quickly or their life may be taken from them or they may suffer grievious bodily harm.  The  law of self defense exists to protect the innocent as in to enable them to defend themselves in a legal manner and with the use of deadly force if they reasonably believe their life is in danger or that they may suffer grievious bodily harm.

The big mistake in this case was made by the deceased black guy.  He rushed out of the store and without bothering to find out what was going on commitdted assault.  When he exited the store all he saw was a older white man talking to his girlfriend.  Is that any excuse for assaulting the man...of course not.  He made a terrible and tragic mistake by doing that and it cost him his life.  Case closed.  no further comments needed.


----------



## harmonica

this guy had a pistol
..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
 went through a red light,
did not stop at a stop sign,
your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
'''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
'''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
!!!!!????
-I would tell the guy to get moving/FOff/etc ..FU!!!
..the guy with the pistol--even without one--is not authority and should've just taken a pic/etc if he was so upset about it

...the victim OBVIOUSLY was not attacking/not about to attack when the guy pulled out his pistol = unjustified shooting
...even the police give warnings to ''drop the gun''/''get down'' before shooting if possible


----------



## MacTheKnife

harmonica said:


> this guy had a pistol
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!????
> -I would tell the guy to get moving/FOff/etc ..FU!!!
> ..the guy with the pistol--even without one--is not authority and should've just taken a pic/etc if he was so upset about it
> 
> ...the victim OBVIOUSLY was not attacking/not about to attack when the guy pulled out his pistol = unjustified shooting
> ...even the police give warnings to ''drop the gun''/''get down'' before shooting if possible



Can anyone say incoherent?  Prejudicial?  Biased and cannot even get the facts of case correct.  Absolute malarky in a nutshell.

As a citizen you have the right to make a citizen's arrest if you see someone violating the law.  There is no evidence that the shooter was attempting to make a citizen's arrest thought it would have been legal if he had done so.  From all the evidence it appears the shooter was just telling the woman that they should not have parked in a handicapped spot.  Nothing illegal about that.  He had every right to tell her that, as in, Perfectly legal.

Yes, the guy had a concealed weapon and he had a permit to have one.  Again, perfectly legal.  Folks we are a nation of laws...it would behoove some on this thread to know what the law is regarding self defense.

The victim committed assault, by knocking the white guy to the ground.  You seem not even to know that???


----------



## OODA_Loop

harmonica said:


> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!???



First two examples I am in my car = keep driving.

The grass example is on my property =  find out what the issue through the closed locked door (armed).  I dont open my door for strangers.  Call cops

In every case I would not assault the person complaining about my actions


----------



## harmonica

OODA_Loop said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First two examples I am in my car = keep driving.
> 
> The grass example is on my property =  find out what the issue through the closed locked door (armed).  I dont open my door for strangers.  Call cop
> 
> In every case I would not assault the person complaining about my actions
Click to expand...

bullshit!!!!most males would tell the guy to FOff
most humans do not like to be told they did something wrong--even by cops!!!!!!
what if he followed you till you stopped and got out??
what if you parked illegally and someone kept bugging you about it??
you shouldn't give a FK about parking there because---you parked there
so someone telling you were wrong would piss you off


----------



## harmonica

MacTheKnife said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guy had a pistol
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!????
> -I would tell the guy to get moving/FOff/etc ..FU!!!
> ..the guy with the pistol--even without one--is not authority and should've just taken a pic/etc if he was so upset about it
> 
> ...the victim OBVIOUSLY was not attacking/not about to attack when the guy pulled out his pistol = unjustified shooting
> ...even the police give warnings to ''drop the gun''/''get down'' before shooting if possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone say incoherent?  Prejudicial?  Biased and cannot even get the facts of case correct.  Absolute malarky in a nutshell.
> 
> As a citizen you have the right to make a citizen's arrest if you see someone violating the law.  There is no evidence that the shooter was attempting to make a citizen's arrest thought it would have been legal if he had done so.  From all the evidence it appears the shooter was just telling the woman that they should not have parked in a handicapped spot.  Nothing illegal about that.  He had every right to tell her that, as in, Perfectly legal.
> 
> Yes, the guy had a concealed weapon and he had a permit to have one.  Again, perfectly legal.  Folks we are a nation of laws...it would behoove some on this thread to know what the law is regarding self defense.
> 
> The victim committed assault, by knocking the white guy to the ground.  You seem not even to know that???
Click to expand...

this is just like Zimmerman--someone with a pistol going out of there way for something VERY trivial
..no--fuck that idiot--he knew he had a pistol and went to talk shit 
if someone did that to me, I'd tell them to FOff very blatantly --as most people would
when you have a weapon, you have to go out of your way NOT to start shit 
this is starting shit for NO reason


----------



## harmonica

I ask how many here--how many of you have confronted someone over illegal parking???!!!?????
NONE of you--right??--meaning this guy is an idiot


----------



## harmonica

that's what's different/odd/etc
MOST people do not make a big deal out of illegal parking


----------



## JakeStarkey

The man defended his wife from the shooter's vicious rants and was killed for it.


----------



## MacTheKnife

harmonica said:


> that's what's different/odd/etc
> MOST people do not make a big deal out of illegal parking



Not relevant.  As has been pointed out--in America if you see someone violating the law you are legally entitled to make a citizens arrest.  Though in this case there is no evidence the shooter was attempting to make a citizens arrest.  He was just talking to the woman and telling her they should not have parked in the handicap spot.   Entirely legal behavior.


----------



## OODA_Loop

harmonica said:


> bullshit!!!!most males would tell the guy to FOff
> most humans do not like to be told they did something wrong--even by cops!!!!!!
> what if he followed you till you stopped and got out??
> what if you parked illegally and someone kept bugging you about it??
> you shouldn't give a FK about parking there because---you parked there
> so someone telling you were wrong would piss you off




Until someone put their hands on me I would not engage.


----------



## MacTheKnife

harmonica said:


> I ask how many here--how many of you have confronted someone over illegal parking???!!!?????
> NONE of you--right??--meaning this guy is an idiot



You need to take a course in logic...as in what you are saying is totally illogical.  Some people when they see other people doing something illegal will confront them.  And, that is perfectly wihin their right to do so.  What the majirity might do in a case like this means nothing as in no relevance to this case.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> The man defended his wife from the shooter's vicious rants and was killed for it.



Vicious rants.    Does tone, volume or content determine viciousness ?


----------



## MacTheKnife

harmonica said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guy had a pistol
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!????
> -I would tell the guy to get moving/FOff/etc ..FU!!!
> ..the guy with the pistol--even without one--is not authority and should've just taken a pic/etc if he was so upset about it
> 
> ...the victim OBVIOUSLY was not attacking/not about to attack when the guy pulled out his pistol = unjustified shooting
> ...even the police give warnings to ''drop the gun''/''get down'' before shooting if possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone say incoherent?  Prejudicial?  Biased and cannot even get the facts of case correct.  Absolute malarky in a nutshell.
> 
> As a citizen you have the right to make a citizen's arrest if you see someone violating the law.  There is no evidence that the shooter was attempting to make a citizen's arrest thought it would have been legal if he had done so.  From all the evidence it appears the shooter was just telling the woman that they should not have parked in a handicapped spot.  Nothing illegal about that.  He had every right to tell her that, as in, Perfectly legal.
> 
> Yes, the guy had a concealed weapon and he had a permit to have one.  Again, perfectly legal.  Folks we are a nation of laws...it would behoove some on this thread to know what the law is regarding self defense.
> 
> The victim committed assault, by knocking the white guy to the ground.  You seem not even to know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is just like Zimmerman--someone with a pistol going out of there way for something VERY trivial
> ..no--fuck that idiot--he knew he had a pistol and went to talk shit
> if someone did that to me, I'd tell them to FOff very blatantly --as most people would
> when you have a weapon, you have to go out of your way NOT to start shit
> this is starting shit for NO reason
Click to expand...


You can legally carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit to do so.  The shooter had a permit and he was perfectly within the law to have the weapon.  There are no stipulations under the law that if you are armed you must go out of your way to do anything.  BTW  this guy had every right to tell the woman they should not have parked in the handicap spot.  The Shooter did nothing illegal, nothing whatsoever.  The black guy however comitted assault and he had been arrested for assault before this incident.  

No one should think they are entitled to just walk up and knock someone to the ground for talking to your g/f.


----------



## MacTheKnife

OODA_Loop said:


> Not really.    There are 600 or so visitors who see these threads every hour who know the deal.
> 
> You were wrong and posted something totally off point.    Your posts lack any level of credibility to be taken as true debate.
> 
> Fact remains _*you can not lawfully assault people for words absent a clear and present ability to inflict harm such as brandishing a gun or other weapon.*_
> 
> Or risk lethal self-defensive actions.
> 
> Ask Treyvon, Mike Brown or McGlocklin



All the black guys in Florida should have learned something from Trayvon's mistake as in do not assault a stranger no matter  how harmless he might appear, especially in Florida as in he might have a pistol in his pocket and what a nasty supprise that can be.


----------



## MacTheKnife

harmonica said:


> this guy had a pistol
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!????
> -I would tell the guy to get moving/FOff/etc ..FU!!!
> ..the guy with the pistol--even without one--is not authority and should've just taken a pic/etc if he was so upset about it
> 
> ...the victim OBVIOUSLY was not attacking/not about to attack when the guy pulled out his pistol = unjustified shooting
> ...even the police give warnings to ''drop the gun''/''get down'' before shooting if possible



If one is being assaulted it is best to shoot first and ask questions later.  Because if you do not your life might be taken from your or you may suffer grievious bodily harm.  Be prepared and be armed.  Two important things in today's society.


----------



## 2aguy

MacTheKnife said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guy had a pistol
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!????
> -I would tell the guy to get moving/FOff/etc ..FU!!!
> ..the guy with the pistol--even without one--is not authority and should've just taken a pic/etc if he was so upset about it
> 
> ...the victim OBVIOUSLY was not attacking/not about to attack when the guy pulled out his pistol = unjustified shooting
> ...even the police give warnings to ''drop the gun''/''get down'' before shooting if possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone say incoherent?  Prejudicial?  Biased and cannot even get the facts of case correct.  Absolute malarky in a nutshell.
> 
> As a citizen you have the right to make a citizen's arrest if you see someone violating the law.  There is no evidence that the shooter was attempting to make a citizen's arrest thought it would have been legal if he had done so.  From all the evidence it appears the shooter was just telling the woman that they should not have parked in a handicapped spot.  Nothing illegal about that.  He had every right to tell her that, as in, Perfectly legal.
> 
> Yes, the guy had a concealed weapon and he had a permit to have one.  Again, perfectly legal.  Folks we are a nation of laws...it would behoove some on this thread to know what the law is regarding self defense.
> 
> The victim committed assault, by knocking the white guy to the ground.  You seem not even to know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is just like Zimmerman--someone with a pistol going out of there way for something VERY trivial
> ..no--fuck that idiot--he knew he had a pistol and went to talk shit
> if someone did that to me, I'd tell them to FOff very blatantly --as most people would
> when you have a weapon, you have to go out of your way NOT to start shit
> this is starting shit for NO reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can legally carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit to do so.  The shooter had a permit and he was perfectly within the law to have the weapon.  There are no stipulations under the law that if you are armed you must go out of your way to do anything.  BTW  this guy had every right to tell the woman they should not have parked in the handicap spot.  The Shooter did nothing illegal, nothing whatsoever.  The black guy however comitted assault and he had been arrested for assault before this incident.
> 
> No one should think they are entitled to just walk up and knock someone to the ground for talking to your g/f.
Click to expand...



Do you have a link to a story that goes into the attackers background....I haven't found any yet, which likely means he has a long history of violence.


----------



## OODA_Loop

He died doing what he loved


----------



## Dan Stubbs

U2Edge said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
Click to expand...

*Sudden ambush from the rear would be not a good thing to do, such actions are and can be fearsom to many and violent.  Gun play is in question as to what the person thought was happening.  If someone unarmed suddenly wakes you up and you don't expect it because you are in your house alone.  You shoot him and find it was your brother was it murder.  Courts have ruled that it is not.  Much is missing in what ever shooting you are talking about. *


----------



## JakeStarkey

You don't know do you, Oodles.  Look it up.


----------



## MacTheKnife

Dan Stubbs said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy assaulted him.
> Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for a child to do this on the play ground? Since when does the punishment for assault involve the DEATH PENALTY? Has anyone ever been given the death penalty for pushing a man to the ground in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sudden ambush from the rear would be not a good thing to do, such actions are and can be fearsom to many and violent.  Gun play is in question as to what the person thought was happening.  If someone unarmed suddenly wakes you up and you don't expect it because you are in your house alone.  You shoot him and find it was your brother was it murder.  Courts have ruled that it is not.  Much is missing in what ever shooting you are talking about. *
Click to expand...


Not to  mention the law of self defense. 

The Florida Law on Self Defense:  

Defendants can use deadly or non-deadly force as an affirmative defense to justify their actions:

Non-Deadly Force: This refers to force that is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, such as hitting or shoving someone. A person is justified in using non-deadly force where they reasonably believe that it is necessary to defend against another's imminent use of unlawful force. There is no duty to retreat.

Deadly Force: According to Florida law, a person can use or threaten to use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of "forcible felonies" such as assault, burglary, or kidnapping. It is also allowable to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.


----------



## MacTheKnife

2aguy said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guy had a pistol
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!????
> -I would tell the guy to get moving/FOff/etc ..FU!!!
> ..the guy with the pistol--even without one--is not authority and should've just taken a pic/etc if he was so upset about it
> 
> ...the victim OBVIOUSLY was not attacking/not about to attack when the guy pulled out his pistol = unjustified shooting
> ...even the police give warnings to ''drop the gun''/''get down'' before shooting if possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone say incoherent?  Prejudicial?  Biased and cannot even get the facts of case correct.  Absolute malarky in a nutshell.
> 
> As a citizen you have the right to make a citizen's arrest if you see someone violating the law.  There is no evidence that the shooter was attempting to make a citizen's arrest thought it would have been legal if he had done so.  From all the evidence it appears the shooter was just telling the woman that they should not have parked in a handicapped spot.  Nothing illegal about that.  He had every right to tell her that, as in, Perfectly legal.
> 
> Yes, the guy had a concealed weapon and he had a permit to have one.  Again, perfectly legal.  Folks we are a nation of laws...it would behoove some on this thread to know what the law is regarding self defense.
> 
> The victim committed assault, by knocking the white guy to the ground.  You seem not even to know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is just like Zimmerman--someone with a pistol going out of there way for something VERY trivial
> ..no--fuck that idiot--he knew he had a pistol and went to talk shit
> if someone did that to me, I'd tell them to FOff very blatantly --as most people would
> when you have a weapon, you have to go out of your way NOT to start shit
> this is starting shit for NO reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can legally carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit to do so.  The shooter had a permit and he was perfectly within the law to have the weapon.  There are no stipulations under the law that if you are armed you must go out of your way to do anything.  BTW  this guy had every right to tell the woman they should not have parked in the handicap spot.  The Shooter did nothing illegal, nothing whatsoever.  The black guy however comitted assault and he had been arrested for assault before this incident.
> 
> No one should think they are entitled to just walk up and knock someone to the ground for talking to your g/f.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to a story that goes into the attackers background....I haven't found any yet, which likely means he has a long history of violence.
Click to expand...


No history of violence by the shooter.  However the black guy who was shot had been arrested before for assault.


----------



## MacTheKnife

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:



Very prejudicial video which has been edited edited to cover up what really happened and obviously one sided.


----------



## MacTheKnife

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


----------



## MacTheKnife

harmonica said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..you can't go around telling people what to do or not do---now tell me what you would do if someone without authority told you,  that you:
> went through a red light,
> did not stop at a stop sign,
> your grass needs to be cut, etc etc-
> '''hey--you didn't stop at that stop sign''
> '''hey, hey you, you went through that red light''
> !!!!!???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First two examples I am in my car = keep driving.
> 
> The grass example is on my property =  find out what the issue through the closed locked door (armed).  I dont open my door for strangers.  Call cop
> 
> In every case I would not assault the person complaining about my actions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!!!!most males would tell the guy to FOff
> most humans do not like to be told they did something wrong--even by cops!!!!!!
> what if he followed you till you stopped and got out??
> what if you parked illegally and someone kept bugging you about it??
> you shouldn't give a FK about parking there because---you parked there
> so someone telling you were wrong would piss you off
Click to expand...


If the guy had told him to F Off there would have been no problem....instead of telling him that or even trying to figure out what was going on he assaulted the guy....which of course is illegal and anyone that is being assaulted has the right to use deadly force if he believes his life is in danger or if he fears great bodily harm.  Put yourself in his position knocked to the ground and as such in a very vulnurable position to further attack.  Thus in reasonable fear of great bodily harm as well as in fear of his life he acted entirely within the law and thus no reason for his arrest and there was no arrest and from what I hear there will be no arrest which infuriates the media who really do not believe a white man ever has a legal right to kill a black man no matter what the black man may be doing and no matter if the shooter is a police officer.  The liberal narrative is consistent and never change...blacks are he victims and whites are evil racists.  That is what they always runs with but this time there is no obama in office or eric holder in office to put pressure on local authorities thus the media will not be successful in this their latest attempt to lynch a innocent white man.


----------



## MacTheKnife

OODA_Loop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man defended his wife from the shooter's vicious rants and was killed for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vicious rants.    Does tone, volume or content determine viciousness ?
Click to expand...


Screaming at someone if in fact he was screaming is no excuse for him to have been assaulted.  That is the bottom line in this case which the liberals do not want to recognize. 

 The black person  had no right to assault the guy.  Just like he had no legal right to park in a handicapped space.  Also he had been arrested for assault before.

A reasonable course of action would have been for the black guy to come out of the store and talk to the white guy first to understand what was going on.  

Then he should have apologized for illegally parking in a handicapped spot and then left with his family.  

But no, he lost his temper(probably had difficulty controlling his emotions as he had been arrested before for assault)and assaulted the guy.  Which was a huge, huge, yes I say huge mistake and quite tragic for his family.  

I hope people that are prone to violence learn something from this.  Never assault anyone and especially a stranger--even someone that looks weak or older and unable to physically defend themselves or even a woman for that matter--they may have a pistol and they may shoot you legally if they so desire.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MacTheKnife said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very prejudicial video which has been edited edited to cover up what really happened and obviously one sided.
Click to expand...

No, it is not "Very prejudicial."  It clearly shows what happened.


----------



## strollingbones

seems there are a lot of what if the black had done this or that...what if the woman in the car could have done...rolled the window up and moved the car


----------



## strollingbones

the black guy was retreating...alas all the white guy had to say was he felt threatened


----------



## Two Thumbs

U2Edge said:


> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:


you don't get to assault someone for parking illegally.

seems justified.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Two Thumbs said:


> you don't get to assault someone for parking illegally.
> 
> seems justified.




Police said there was no assault and or threats.

No arrest, no fingerprinting no nothing.  Free to go


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is where the investigation is at right now, yes, but this is early innings.  Wait until the state and the feds get involved.


----------



## charwin95

OODA_Loop said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
Click to expand...


You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.


----------



## OODA_Loop

charwin95 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
> A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.
Click to expand...


You would be committing assault and depending on the ferocity of which would have to expect someone to defend themselves.  Lethally if required


----------



## JakeStarkey

A friend of mine, who is a ccw guy, said to me he would have pushed the guy down, too, and he would have watched hoping to see if the guy tried to draw a weapon.

Watch the sillies say, "he pushed me, so I guy to shoot him."


----------



## MacTheKnife

JakeStarkey said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justifiable use of deadly force or not?
> 
> In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.
> 
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.
> 
> I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.
> 
> The article and video of the incident are in the link below:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/
> 
> media link from youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very prejudicial video which has been edited edited to cover up what really happened and obviously one sided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is not "Very prejudicial."  It clearly shows what happened.
Click to expand...


What I meant by has been edited...many of the videos of the incident you see now have heavy a heavy prejudicial commentary accompanying the video and in most cases now the video is not run continuously...they break it down into snippets so you cannot see clearly what transpired.  But it is all a waste of time for them to try and influence the local sheriff...he has balls of steel and will not give in to the ridiculous folks who have no ability to understand what self defense is.


----------



## MacTheKnife

JakeStarkey said:


> A friend of mine, who is a ccw guy, said to me he would have pushed the guy down, too, and he would have watched hoping to see if the guy tried to draw a weapon.
> 
> Watch the sillies say, "he pushed me, so I guy to shoot him."



Oh so easy to plan what you do with hindsight right?  Pathetic.

It really is a waste of time to keep arguing all this.  The case is closed.  No arrest. No obama No eric holder No federal Pressure  

Thus justice has been served the shooter will be able to sell his story for a big sum of money and kick back and enjoy the life that wealth makes possible.

I hear George Zimmerman is also doing fine.  What is not so fine and what is not doing so good is the liberal narrative of black victimhood.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The case is not closed.  There is not an arrest yet.

The state will get involved.

The feds will be involved.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A person who carries (you don't) is always aware of what is going on.

If i pushed a guy, I'd be watching his hands.


----------



## MacTheKnife

JakeStarkey said:


> The case is not closed.  There is not an arrest yet.
> 
> The state will get involved.
> 
> The feds will be involved.



The retarded team of obama and eric holder are long gone.  Do not look for any Federal pressure.  Common sense and justice rule now in Washington.  Libereralism is dead in the water and the democratic party is being taken over by socialists.  Which is a good thing


JakeStarkey said:


> A person who carries (you don't) is always aware of what is going on.
> 
> If i pushed a guy, I'd be watching his hands.



Anytime you assault anyone you best be watching everything.  Especially when assaulting a stranger as in not known what they are capable of what they may be in possession of.  Not to forget also...assault is a criminal offense and these days you are apt to be on camera.  So if you decide to assault someone you should only do it in a dark alley.


----------



## MacTheKnife

JakeStarkey said:


> A friend of mine, who is a ccw guy, said to me he would have pushed the guy down, too, and he would have watched hoping to see if the guy tried to draw a weapon.
> 
> Watch the sillies say, "he pushed me, so I guy to shoot him."



What is silly and extremely foolish as in deadly-- is to assault a stranger and expect no repercussions.  To begin with assault is a crime and that is only just a part of your worries if you assault someone --as proved in a very public way by this case and in the case of Trayvonista.... both darkies liked to fight and look where it got them.  Live by the sword and die by the sword.  Especially in Florida.  Never choose violence as your first option...the guy in this recent incident in Clearwater would still be alive if he had taken a little time to figure out what was going on and dealt with it in a responsible manner as others who had been reproached at this same location for illegally parking in a handicap zone survived their encounter with this old fellow who knew his rights and was able to defend himself wonderfully. 

I wonder if the shooter was handicapped?   His stance looked awkward and fragile.  But he knew how to shoot. 

There really should be a medal for those who manage to remove from decent society those folks who are pone to assault others.


----------



## MacTheKnife

strollingbones said:


> seems there are a lot of what if the black had done this or that...what if the woman in the car could have done...rolled the window up and moved the car



Yes, important point and I am glad you brought it up.  It was in my thinking she could have prevented the death of her b/f if she had been polite to the old guy and as you say offered to move the car whatever it took.  The old guy would have gone his way.  People need to learn to be very polite to strangers especially.  A big unknown factor...a stranger.  But it is good always to be polite no matter the situation.  People are just too rude for their on good not to mention it puts much stress in our lives that is not needed.


----------



## MacTheKnife

OODA_Loop said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
> A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be committing assault and depending on the ferocity of which would have to expect someone to defend themselves.  Lethally if required
Click to expand...


Yes.  but so many do not get the law of self defense.....in fact it appears most liberals are ignorant of the law o self defense.  They seem to think a white guy should never defend himself against some darky with evil intentions.


----------



## MacTheKnife

MacTheKnife said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
> A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be committing assault and depending on the ferocity of which would have to expect someone to defend themselves.  Lethally if required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  but so many do not get the law of self defense.....in fact it appears most liberals are ignorant of the law o self defense.  They seem to think a white guy should never defend himself against some darky with evil intentions.
Click to expand...


----------



## MacTheKnife

charwin95 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
> A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.
Click to expand...


You are a prime candidate for a early death.  Dangerous attitude to run around with.  Both from a legal perspective as well as a common sense perspective.  Lots of folks out there who can supprise the hell out of you as Trayvonista and this latest moron foundout.  Can you imagine the shock the darky went through when he realized the old guy had inflicted a mortal wound?  To be killed by someone you thought was just another p.o.s. white guy.  Oh so entitled ---they think they can run around and assault anyone...especially someone they perceive as being weak and no threat.

Also a lot of darkies think the state will allways protect them.  How did that work out for this fellow in the incident in Clearwater?   
Some folks really need to wise up.  Steer clear of violence if at all possible.  You will live a lot longer. and perhaps even avoid jail time.


----------



## MacTheKnife

OODA_Loop said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't get to assault someone for parking illegally.
> 
> seems justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police said there was no assault and or threats.
> 
> No arrest, no fingerprinting no nothing.  Free to go
Click to expand...


Well, you are right concerning the shooter but the black guy did committ assault thus he instigated his own death.  He had been arrested for assault before.  Apparantly he could not control his infantile temper as in--not gonna let some white guy mess wid ma woman---gonna teach him a lesson.  Right...now his folks are weeping.  Black communities are constantly weeping over the results of all the violence in their culture.  Will they ever wake up?  Oh a few black preachers try to enlighten them but it has not done much good.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anything but common sense and justice rule now in Washington.

Certain ccw people want to kill other unarmed 'violent' people, so the gun holder creates a scene where he can be 'assaulted' and thus able to dispatch the victim.

If and when caught in the act by other responsible ccw observers, such shooters should be shown no mercy.  Maybe they can shout "don't resist", and when the shooter turns their way with weapon in hand, they can be dispatched.


----------



## OODA_Loop

[QUOTE="JakeStarkey, post: 20464873, member: 20412”]

Certain ccw people want to kill other unarmed 'violent' people, so the gun holder creates a scene where he can be 'assaulted' and thus able to dispatch the victim.

[/QUOTE]
 How do you know this?


----------



## Vastator

MacTheKnife said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems there are a lot of what if the black had done this or that...what if the woman in the car could have done...rolled the window up and moved the car
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, important point and I am glad you brought it up.  It was in my thinking she could have prevented the death of her b/f if she had been polite to the old guy and as you say offered to move the car whatever it took.  The old guy would have gone his way.  People need to learn to be very polite to strangers especially.  A big unknown factor...a stranger.  But it is good always to be polite no matter the situation.  People are just too rude for their on good not to mention it puts much stress in our lives that is not needed.
Click to expand...

An armed society is a polite society...


----------



## 2aguy

JakeStarkey said:


> Anything but common sense and justice rule now in Washington.
> 
> Certain ccw people want to kill other unarmed 'violent' people, so the gun holder creates a scene where he can be 'assaulted' and thus able to dispatch the victim.
> 
> If and when caught in the act by other responsible ccw observers, such shooters should be shown no mercy.  Maybe they can shout "don't resist", and when the shooter turns their way with weapon in hand, they can be dispatched.




And yet the reality, the facts and the truth tell us you don't know what you are talking about.....we now have close to if not over 17 million people who can and do carry guns out in public....we have close to 600 million guns in private hands....

Our gun murder rate?  Over the last 25 years has gone down 49%.

Our gun violence rate?  Over the last 25 years is down 75%.

Our violent crime rate?  Over the last 25 years is down 72%.

The current research into Concealed carry permit holders shows that they are more law abiding than the average citizen, and commit fewer crimes than sworn police officers do.

You are not talking with facts, you have an opinion and that opinion is not based in the truth or reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yet UK, Australia, South Africa, Canada, etc., are far more safer than the US with its wild west laws.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> Yet UK, Australia, South Africa, Canada, etc., are far more safer than the US with its wild west laws.


On a knife edge: Rising violence in London

* From the article:* Across England and Wales an incident involving a blade or sharp object takes place, on average, every 14 minutes. Of the 37,000 incidents in the past 12 months, more than 13,000 offenses were committed in London.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Gun violence in Canada is a lot more common than you think


----------



## OODA_Loop

South Africa is the second worst country in the world for gun deaths


----------



## OODA_Loop

*Knife killings on the rise in Australia as gun murders fall*


----------



## JakeStarkey

OODA_Loop said:


> On a knife edge: Rising violence in London
> 
> * From the article:* Across England and Wales an incident involving a blade or sharp object takes place, on average, every 14 minutes. Of the 37,000 incidents in the past 12 months, more than 13,000 offenses were committed in London.


So monthly the average sharp edge event affects .000125284738041 of London's population.

That is probably 99% of people slicing their thumbs when preparing meat or vegetables.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a knife edge: Rising violence in London
> 
> * From the article:* Across England and Wales an incident involving a blade or sharp object takes place, on average, every 14 minutes. Of the 37,000 incidents in the past 12 months, more than 13,000 offenses were committed in London.
> 
> 
> 
> So monthly the average sharp edge event affects .000125284738041 of London's population.
> 
> That is probably 99% of people slicing their thumbs when preparing meat or vegetables.
Click to expand...


What percentage of US gun crime affects our population ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Far more per capita than UK or Australia, you know that, Ooodles.


----------



## 2aguy

JakeStarkey said:


> Yet UK, Australia, South Africa, Canada, etc., are far more safer than the US with its wild west laws.




The wild west was very safe...everyone had a gun so everyone was polite.

Gun crime in the U.K., Australia  and Canada is going up....

Did you just list South Africa as being safer than the U.S....... did you fall and hit your head?

South Africa is getting ready for genocide...they are mandating that White Farmers turn in their guns.......


----------



## MacTheKnife

2aguy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything but common sense and justice rule now in Washington.
> 
> Certain ccw people want to kill other unarmed 'violent' people, so the gun holder creates a scene where he can be 'assaulted' and thus able to dispatch the victim.
> 
> If and when caught in the act by other responsible ccw observers, such shooters should be shown no mercy.  Maybe they can shout "don't resist", and when the shooter turns their way with weapon in hand, they can be dispatched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the reality, the facts and the truth tell us you don't know what you are talking about.....we now have close to if not over 17 million people who can and do carry guns out in public....we have close to 600 million guns in private hands....
> 
> Our gun murder rate?  Over the last 25 years has gone down 49%.
> 
> Our gun violence rate?  Over the last 25 years is down 75%.
> 
> Our violent crime rate?  Over the last 25 years is down 72%.
> 
> The current research into Concealed carry permit holders shows that they are more law abiding than the average citizen, and commit fewer crimes than sworn police officers do.
> 
> You are not talking with facts, you have an opinion and that opinion is not based in the truth or reality.
Click to expand...


Great post.


----------



## MaryL

We all have hindsight AFTER the fact. I hate assholes ( yes, any able person that parks in handicapped spot needs a swift kick in the ASS), but that aside: But did the asskickee-need to assault this man? Um, it seemed that Mr. Victim shouldn't  have attacked  Mr. Gunn guy. Yet again, it seems Mr. Gunn was  on some kind of self appointed deputy thing. Mr Gunn could have just pointed his gun  at Mr. Victim  and that would have pretty much ended the squabble.


----------



## MacTheKnife

MaryL said:


> We all have hindsight AFTER the fact. I hate assholes ( yes, any able person that parks in handicapped spot needs a swift kick in the ASS), but that aside: But did the asskickee-need to assault this man? Um, it seemed that Mr. Victim shouldn't  have attacked  Mr. Gunn guy. Yet again, it seems Mr. Gunn was  on some kind of self appointed deputy thing. Mr Gunn could have just pointed his gun  at Mr. Victim  and that would have pretty much ended the squabble.



Easy for you to say since you were not the one knocked to the ground.

 In a situation like this when a fellow has been blindsided and knocked to the ground he must assume there might be more to follow.

He has no idea what might happen next and he  could very well have been in a mild state of shock.

 Thus--the self preservation instinct kicks into play. 

To understand how  that works  you need to have been in combat or some altercation where your life is on the line. 

The law of the jungle says....when attacked by a monkey shoot first and ax questions later.

_'NOW this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it will die'....Law of the Jungle._


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> We all have hindsight AFTER the fact. I hate assholes ( yes, any able person that parks in handicapped spot needs a swift kick in the ASS), but that aside: But did the asskickee-need to assault this man? Um, it seemed that Mr. Victim shouldn't  have attacked  Mr. Gunn guy. Yet again, it seems Mr. Gunn was  on some kind of self appointed deputy thing. Mr Gunn could have just pointed his gun  at Mr. Victim  and that would have pretty much ended the squabble.



Heat of passion.....inertia,,,,,,close proximity of the attacker......fear (caused by attacker)......

I don't see this as a stand your ground case. Stand your ground cases involve shootings where the attacker is coming at the victim. Then the victim is not obligated to flee, but can shoot the attacker to defend himself.

In this case, McGlockton was stepping backward. It looks like a simple self-defense (or not) case, not SYG. It's not a matter of whether Drejka should have fled or not, it's a matter of whether he should have fired his gun.

Also, there is the question of inertia mixed with heat of passion. This all happened in the space of a few seconds, and when Drejka shot, he could have still been in a self-defense consciousness, carrying over. Who (that has not been in this situation) is really to say what the shooter might have felt ?

Also, when the gun was fired, McGlockton was still very close to Drejka - well within the standard 21 foot zone for self-defense shooting. Is Drejka under an obligation to automatically assume that he is no longer threatened ? In a blink of an eye (with how close McGlockton was) he still could have bolted toward Drejka, to finish his attack.

I'm not necessarily defending Drejka, but just trying to illuminate some factors not seeming to be discussed too much, which could be relevant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The stupidity of the killatanychance group just reeks foul.

The new investigations beginning tomorrow will bring the full story to light.


----------



## OODA_Loop

2aguy said:


> The wild west was very safe...everyone had a gun so everyone was polite.
> .


People were held accountable for their actions....it is whats missing today.


----------



## MacTheKnife

protectionist said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have hindsight AFTER the fact. I hate assholes ( yes, any able person that parks in handicapped spot needs a swift kick in the ASS), but that aside: But did the asskickee-need to assault this man? Um, it seemed that Mr. Victim shouldn't  have attacked  Mr. Gunn guy. Yet again, it seems Mr. Gunn was  on some kind of self appointed deputy thing. Mr Gunn could have just pointed his gun  at Mr. Victim  and that would have pretty much ended the squabble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heat of passion.....inertia,,,,,,close proximity of the attacker......fear (caused by attacker)......
> 
> I don't see this as a stand your ground case. Stand your ground cases involve shootings where the attacker is coming at the victim. Then the victim is not obligated to flee, but can shoot the attacker to defend himself.
> 
> In this case, McGlockton was stepping backward. It looks like a simple self-defense (or not) case, not SYG. It's not a matter of whether Drejka should have fled or not, it's a matter of whether he should have fired his gun.
> 
> Also, there is the question of inertia mixed with heat of passion. This all happened in the space of a few seconds, and when Drejka shot, he could have still been in a self-defense consciousness, carrying over. Who (that has not been in this situation) is really to say what the shooter might have felt ?
> 
> Also, when the gun was fired, McGlockton was still very close to Drejka - well within the standard 21 foot zone for self-defense shooting. Is Drejka under an obligation to automatically assume that he is no longer threatened ? In a blink of an eye (with how close McGlockton was) he still could have bolted toward Drejka, to finish his attack.
> 
> I'm not necessarily defending Drejka, but just trying to illuminate some factors not seeming to be discussed too much, which could be relevant.
Click to expand...


Excellent analysis which one does not see often in regards to this discussion.  Too many do not know what the law of self defense in Florida says.  Then if you inform them, most of them are so blinded by their bias and agenda they still cannot get it.  Of course the intelligence factor plays a big role also as in many posting on this topic have a problem in that area.


----------



## MacTheKnife

OODA_Loop said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wild west was very safe...everyone had a gun so everyone was polite.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People were held accountable for their actions....it is whats missing today.
Click to expand...


Well, another big factor is the racial problem we have today.  I think the older man would have shot whoever was attacking him, no matter their color.  But I doubt if the black guy would have attacked another black guy like that.  The black had been arrested for assault in another case.  It would be interesting to know the details of that.


----------



## MacTheKnife

JakeStarkey said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a knife edge: Rising violence in London
> 
> * From the article:* Across England and Wales an incident involving a blade or sharp object takes place, on average, every 14 minutes. Of the 37,000 incidents in the past 12 months, more than 13,000 offenses were committed in London.
> 
> 
> 
> So monthly the average sharp edge event affects .000125284738041 of London's population.
> 
> That is probably 99% of people slicing their thumbs when preparing meat or vegetables.
Click to expand...


You seem unaware of what is happening in London.  

London stabbings 2018 – Latest knife crime statistics and attacks in Leicester Square to Mill Hill


----------



## MacTheKnife

OODA_Loop said:


> [QUOTE="JakeStarkey, post: 20464873, member: 20412”]
> 
> Certain ccw people want to kill other unarmed 'violent' people, so the gun holder creates a scene where he can be 'assaulted' and thus able to dispatch the victim.


 How do you know this?[/QUOTE]

He doesn't know shit from shiloh.  He just has an over-active imagination.


----------



## charwin95

OODA_Loop said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
> A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be committing assault and depending on the ferocity of which would have to expect someone to defend themselves.  Lethally if required
Click to expand...


To bad. Protecting my family is a priority and more important than anything else. 

The man that did the shoving should have followed by kick and punch the heck of this dude. Always assumed that that this dude is crazy. 

I saw a fight like that in Russia and China. While the other guy is on the ground this dude grab a chair and pummeled with no chance to retaliate.
In China while this guy is on the ground the other guy jump on him and beat the heck with no chance to hit back. 

I don’t know who are the bad guys on both fights.


----------



## charwin95

MacTheKnife said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
> A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime candidate for a early death.  Dangerous attitude to run around with.  Both from a legal perspective as well as a common sense perspective.  Lots of folks out there who can supprise the hell out of you as Trayvonista and this latest moron foundout.  Can you imagine the shock the darky went through when he realized the old guy had inflicted a mortal wound?  To be killed by someone you thought was just another p.o.s. white guy.  Oh so entitled ---they think they can run around and assault anyone...especially someone they perceive as being weak and no threat.
> 
> Also a lot of darkies think the state will allways protect them.  How did that work out for this fellow in the incident in Clearwater?
> Some folks really need to wise up.  Steer clear of violence if at all possible.  You will live a lot longer. and perhaps even avoid jail time.
Click to expand...


The world doesn’t work that way brother. 
There is always saying...... I will also stay on my ground protecting my family.


----------



## MacTheKnife

charwin95 said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering if you knew who is the instigator.
> Verbally assaulting his wife. Do you just stand there watch and play pussy?
> Then he got shoved for minding other people’s business. Pulled a gun killing someone just because of handicap parking space. Murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant put your hands on people for words.  What every kindergartener knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t just yelled at my wife or my girlfriend either.
> A jerk like that will get more than shoved  from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a prime candidate for a early death.  Dangerous attitude to run around with.  Both from a legal perspective as well as a common sense perspective.  Lots of folks out there who can supprise the hell out of you as Trayvonista and this latest moron foundout.  Can you imagine the shock the darky went through when he realized the old guy had inflicted a mortal wound?  To be killed by someone you thought was just another p.o.s. white guy.  Oh so entitled ---they think they can run around and assault anyone...especially someone they perceive as being weak and no threat.
> 
> Also a lot of darkies think the state will allways protect them.  How did that work out for this fellow in the incident in Clearwater?
> Some folks really need to wise up.  Steer clear of violence if at all possible.  You will live a lot longer. and perhaps even avoid jail time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world doesn’t work that way brother.
> There is always saying...... I will also stay on my ground protecting my family.
Click to expand...


Is Trayvon dead or not?  Is the Clearwater  black guy dead or not?  geez some folks just never learn. 

 Not even to mention  that the black guys family was in no danger until he committed assault right in front of his children. 

 He had no respect for his family and paid the ultimate price.  

Since this was the second time the black guy had comitted assault one has to think he had huge anger problems which he could not control. 

 I wonder if his first victim was also white?


----------



## sealybobo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions,    He used only after being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say so.
> But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
> People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
> Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.
Click to expand...

Yes, the law is the law 

Florida 'stand your ground' shooter charged with manslaughter


----------



## G.T.

I saw that today, I'm glad that justice is being served after thorough review.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Zimmerman 2.0


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OODA_Loop said:


> Zimmerman 2.0



  Was thinking the same thing.
They bowed to public pressure...as in negro pressure.


----------



## MacTheKnife

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman 2.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was thinking the same thing.
> They bowed to public pressure...as in negro pressure.
Click to expand...


More like media pressure.  Clearwater is heavily dependent on tourism...from Europe, New York and many other pc places.  Thus the media could have cost Clearwater millions of dollars in lost revenue if the  media portrayed Clearwater as being racist.  

Manslaughter...to begin with is not a very serious charge even if he were convicted which he will not be.  The guy is rather well to do and will have the ability to hire a good legal team...the only thing the state has going for them is that the black guy sort of stepped backwards and to the side...the shooter cannot be second-guessed--he was in fear of his life and with good cause.  He did not have the benefit of hindsight as so many commentators on here have.  The defense only needs to persuade the jury the shooter did not even see the lil backward movement...and most likely he did not.  

Anyone that has been in such a situation where your life is on the line--understands  the basic human nature of self  preservation  kicks in automatically  and one zeros in on what one must do to survive...trivial movement is not even picked up on by the brain...I am sure they will find some expert witnesses to describe how the brain works in a case like this.  The state will spend a lot of money for the trial in order to escape media condemnation and that is the bottom line.  He should not have been charged and the fact he was just demonstrates once again how we as a nation are unraveling.  

There was a lot of banter about Zimmerman being overcharged...the pundits claimed after he was acquitted they could have gotten a conviction on a lesser charge...maybe so maybe not....but it appears the Clearwater authorities have picked up on that and come up with the charge of manslaughter.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MacTheKnife said:


> More like media pressure. Clearwater is heavily dependent on tourism...from Europe, New York and many other pc places. Thus the media could have cost Clearwater millions of dollars in lost revenue if the media portrayed Clearwater as being racist.
> 
> Manslaughter...to begin with is not a very serious charge even if he were convicted which he will not be. The guy is rather well to do and will have the ability to hire a good legal team...the only thing the state has going for them is that the black guy sort of stepped backwards and to the side...the shooter cannot be second-guessed--he was in fear of his life and with good cause. He did not have the benefit of hindsight as so many commentators on here have. The defense only needs to persuade the jury the shooter did not even see the lil backward movement...and most likely he did not.
> 
> Anyone that has been in such a situation where your life is on the line--understands the basic human nature of self preservation kicks in automatically and one zeros in on what one must do to survive...trivial movement is not even picked up on by the brain...I am sure they will find some expert witnesses to describe how the brain works in a case like this. The state will spend a lot of money for the trial in order to escape media condemnation and that is the bottom line. He should not have been charged and the fact he was just demonstrates once again how we as a nation are unraveling.
> 
> There was a lot of banter about Zimmerman being overcharged...the pundits claimed after he was acquitted they could have gotten a conviction on a lesser charge...maybe so maybe not....but it appears the Clearwater authorities have picked up on that and come up with the charge of manslaughter.


Do you concealed carry?  And if you do, were you trained on what to do before you find yourself in a situation where you have to make a split decision on whether to shoot or not?


----------



## MacTheKnife

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like media pressure. Clearwater is heavily dependent on tourism...from Europe, New York and many other pc places. Thus the media could have cost Clearwater millions of dollars in lost revenue if the media portrayed Clearwater as being racist.
> 
> Manslaughter...to begin with is not a very serious charge even if he were convicted which he will not be. The guy is rather well to do and will have the ability to hire a good legal team...the only thing the state has going for them is that the black guy sort of stepped backwards and to the side...the shooter cannot be second-guessed--he was in fear of his life and with good cause. He did not have the benefit of hindsight as so many commentators on here have. The defense only needs to persuade the jury the shooter did not even see the lil backward movement...and most likely he did not.
> 
> Anyone that has been in such a situation where your life is on the line--understands the basic human nature of self preservation kicks in automatically and one zeros in on what one must do to survive...trivial movement is not even picked up on by the brain...I am sure they will find some expert witnesses to describe how the brain works in a case like this. The state will spend a lot of money for the trial in order to escape media condemnation and that is the bottom line. He should not have been charged and the fact he was just demonstrates once again how we as a nation are unraveling.
> 
> There was a lot of banter about Zimmerman being overcharged...the pundits claimed after he was acquitted they could have gotten a conviction on a lesser charge...maybe so maybe not....but it appears the Clearwater authorities have picked up on that and come up with the charge of manslaughter.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you concealed carry?  And if you do, were you trained on what to do before you find yourself in a situation where you have to make a split decision on whether to shoot or not?
Click to expand...


I have two pistols but I rarely carry them...I always carry a knife which if forced to use does not carry the connotations that a pistol does these days as in too many are hypersesitive in regards to firearms.  In a confrontation at close quarters a knife is very effective and actually better than a pistol.  Most of these one on one confrontations are at very close range.

Training is one thing but real life is another.  I was well trained in the military.  As I have said before never draw your weapon unless you intend to use it...if you draw it you best use it and as quickly as possible.  Too many cases of naive folks waving their weapons around thinking that will scare the perp off...too many cases of exactly the opposite happening.  The victim winds up getting his or her gun taken away from them and used against them.

But training is essential, but even those who get good training it is often a long time ago and thus when they get involved in  a 'situation' the training memories may be hazy.  Anyone that carries a weapon should visit the range often and review the training lessons quite often as well, and above all prepare yourself mentally if worse comes to worse...how to draw and shoot quickly and aim for center mass.  The shooter in Clearwater did everything exactly as it should be done....got his weapon out quickly and fired quickly and hit the perp  right in the center of his mass.

Thus he insured his survival and or prevented grievious harm of his body.

The second guessers and all those pundits whose life was not on the  line can sit back and watch the video in slow motion or whatever and proclaim oh he should have done this or he should have done that...utter rubbish.  The guy did exactly what he needed to do...to make damn sure he ended the threat.  Even if he is found guilty of mansalughter which would be a travesty of justice  and I do not believe he will be convicted....but even if he was that few months he will be incarcerated is better than losing your life or even risking losing your life.  Life is very fragile and if you value it...you should do your utmost to preserve it.


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI

OODA_Loop said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wild west was very safe...everyone had a gun so everyone was polite.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> People were held accountable for their actions....it is whats missing today.
Click to expand...

Yep.  The shooter is being held accountable for his actions


----------

