F**ked Around and found out....Sucker Punch Gone Sideways

[Persuader]

Oh I don't feel sorry for the dead dude. He brought this on himself for sure.
Feel sorry for his family, but not him.
But law is law, you can't kill someone for punching you when you are no longer in any danger... walk out the door, and turn back and shoot him should not be legal.

Nonsense....it just took a little time for him to regain his senses.

I hope he didnt use a credit card to make his purchase.

But if the sucker puncher is black.....the victim is in big trouble in Chicago

 

[Donald H]

Getting struck in the head in a most violent manner is petty? Well maybe if it is someone else getting punched .....I doubt you would believe that if you were the victim.

Don't blame outsiders, most will realize it's all good for the momentum toward the long predicted civil war.

 

[Persuader]

An unprovoked attack, is hardly a "petty" reason. It might not be legally justified, but it is a seirous provocation.

Exactly.....and justifiable homicide in my opinion....he will need a good lawyer though....they will have to persuade the jury the guy was still in fear of his life....and that he was undoubtedly in shock and in such a state of mind justified to use deadly force.

However.....this is Chicago and we know the beat of that tune.

That guy whoever he is needs to get out of Chicago and go underground.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As you mentioned there's no sound so as far as we know the perp could have verbally threatened his life while advancing.....That and I doubt the shooter was all that clear-headed after the punch.

Like I said, a "no bill" if I was on the grand jury.

No bill is a GJ vote where not enough jurors vote to prosecute based on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
You can't claim insufficient evidence when right there is the video.
Cases like this are difficult. a moral dilemma for sure.
On one hand, the dead dude is overwhelmingly at fault for his own death.
On the other, the shooter was no longer in any danger. Say what you want, but it is very clear the shooter chose not to leave, and he clearly could have as the assailant was not pursuing him. Then the shooter, turns back and re-enters the doorway and shoots him.
You can't do that. Not on public property for sure. His own home, whole other story.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

But the lunatic lefites and demented, deranged DemonicRats just claim this is "normal, everyday life".

It's always been like this. We never had safe streets. To say otherwise is an attack on democracy.

 

[Persuader]

It still falls far short of the predicted revolution Trump is supposed to call for. But it 'is' trend setting in that American crazies are using their guns more for petty reasons.

In Canada the shooter would be charged and convicted of manslaughter, or possibly worse!
I would suggest it would be about the same in other first world civilized countries.

 

[Persuader]

You think Chicago is civilized?

 

[Donald H]

An unprovoked attack, is hardly a "petty" reason. It might not be legally justified, but it is a seirous provocation.

You're hinting at a relevant point in that it could come to be considered justified in America. And in fact it already is in my opinion, with the Rittenhouse shooting, which would have resulted in him being convicted in Canada.

Possibly not for murder but almost certainly manslaughter.

 

[Donald H]

You think Chicago is civilized?

No! you missed my point.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't blame outsiders, most will realize it's all good for the momentum toward the long predicted civil war.

^ the fuckin’ commie Canuck duck is blithering again.

When it comes to any hypothetical American civil war, feel obliged to butt out, you stupid snowback.

 

[White 6]

Not really. On the other hand, I don’t mourn him. Still, I agree that the original victim is in serious legal trouble.

Be that as it may, some people just do not accept victimhood well, and you never know who these people are.
I understand, wish him well, and best of luck with whatever legal problems he may have.

 

[Donald H]

There's no possibility of finding any agreement on this issue when I view it from a Canadian POV and everybody esle views it from an American POV, and frankly, finds it a quite legitimate killing, and even applauding it.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong! Praise the lord and pass the ammo!

 

[Correll]

You're hinting at a relevant point in that it could come to be considered justified in America. And in fact it already is in my opinion, with the Rittenhouse shooting, which would have resulted in him being convicted in Canada.

Possibly not for murder but almost certainly manslaughter.

Shocking that a clear case of self defense would be considered a crime in a supposedly civilized nation.

 

[BackAgain]

There's no possibility of finding any agreement on this issue when I view it from a Canadian POV and everybody esle views it from an American POV, and frankly, finds it a quite legitimate killing, and even applauding it.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong! Praise the lord and pass the ammo!

When you’re wrong? When?

 

[1srelluc]

No bill is a GJ vote where not enough jurors vote to prosecute based on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
You can't claim insufficient evidence when right there is the video.
Cases like this are difficult. a moral dilemma for sure.
On one hand, the dead dude is overwhelmingly at fault for his own death.
On the other, the shooter was no longer in any danger. Say what you want, but it is very clear the shooter chose not to leave, and he clearly could have as the assailant was not pursuing him. Then the shooter, turns back and re-enters the doorway and shoots him.
You can't do that. Not on public property for sure. His own home, whole other story.

Just call it "grand jury nullification" then.....No fuckin' ham sammiches on the GDs that I've been a part of, I can tell you that.

 

[White 6]

Shocking that a clear case of self defense would be considered a crime in a supposedly civilized nation.

Clearly not self-defense, as the assault was over. I doubt it being a murder charge and if there were people like me on the jury, I could easily be nullified to justification and voting "not guilty".

 

[Correll]

Clearly not self-defense, as the assault was over. I doubt it being a murder charge and if there were people like me on the jury, I could easily be nullified to justification and voting "not guilty".

HE brought up Rittenhouse.

 

[1srelluc]

Clearly not self-defense, as the assault was over. I doubt it being a murder charge and if there were people like me on the jury, I could easily be nullified to justification and voting "not guilty".

Given dead guy's advance on the shooter I'm not sure that was so.....Looked like he was a continued threat to me.

It looks like the guy that was blocking him was all that prevented him from reengaging giving the shooter time to get his gat out and do the needful.

Sure, I guess he could have beat feet but perhaps he was in no condition to do so given the head shot he took.

 

[Donald H]

Clearly not self-defense, as the assault was over. I doubt it being a murder charge and if there were people like me on the jury, I could easily be nullified to justification and voting "not guilty".

I'm mildly surprised at the position you're taking.

 

[Correll]

Given dead guy's advance on the shooter I'm not sure that was so.....Looked like he was a continued threat to me.

It looks like the guy that was blocking him was all that prevented him from reengaging giving the shooter time to get his gat out and do the needful.

Sure, I guess he could have beat feet but perhaps he was in no condition to do so given the head shot he took.

i feel a little bad for that guy that did the blocking. He was doing the right thing, but, whoa, he ended up in a bad place.