Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[OODA_Loop]

This is for law enforcement purposes.

Not strictly law enforcement.

Other related ,including non-sworn LE uses. Not civilians

 

[OODA_Loop]

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]

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...?

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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

But you continuing to ask the same question isn't parroting, only when you get the same answer to the same question. Got it

Your answer makes no sense.
You claim to know what was said between the two when thats impossible.
Non of us know.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

.​

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]

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.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

 

[beagle9]

[ 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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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...?

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 "tone" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.

 

[kaz]

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

But you continuing to ask the same question isn't parroting, only when you get the same answer to the same question. Got it

Your answer makes no sense.
You claim to know what was said between the two when thats impossible.
Non of us know.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

 

[beagle9]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

.​

I SAID IT WASN'T CLEAR CUT ENOUGH FOR THE SHERIFF TO ARREST HIM. WTF can't you read?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

​