Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[beagle9]

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.

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]

[ 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...…...

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?

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

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]

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

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

How can the store owner possibly know what was said?

Go to the one minute mark of the video

 

[BlackSand]

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]

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.

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 ?

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]

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 ?

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]

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

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.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

You keep repeating yourself. Quit spamming, and bring relevant content.

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

What point are you trying to make?

 

[OODA_Loop]

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]

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 ...

.​

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

You dont know what was said between the two.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

I didnt hear what the guy and the chick were saying.

Neither did I...

Go to the one minute mark of the video

 

[Vastator]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

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?

 

[OODA_Loop]

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]

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]

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?

But you have no idea what he was saying.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

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?

Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This is for law enforcement purposes.

Not strictly law enforcement.

 

[Vastator]

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?

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.