Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[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

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.

What is real?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

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]

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?

The Sherrif had doubt or an arrest would have been effectuated

 

[beagle9]

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.

Actually the video is quite clear. The murderer was white and the victim was black

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.

WTF? I answered the question asked. What is wrong with you?

Ok, so a no assertion was made beyond the answer you gave to the question.. Got it.. Thanks.

 

[kaz]

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 "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

 

[Vastator]

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

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]

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]

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.

Actually the video is quite clear. The murderer was white and the victim was black

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.

WTF? I answered the question asked. What is wrong with you?

Ok, so a no assertion was made beyond the answer you gave to the question.. Got it.. Thanks.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I answered the question asked

 

[Circe]

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]

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?

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.

 

[kaz]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, exactly. HereWeGoAgain had to get that was my answer. He's not as dense as he's pretending to be

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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]

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

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.

WTF? I answered the question asked. What is wrong with you?

Ok, so a no assertion was made beyond the answer you gave to the question.. Got it.. Thanks.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I answered the question asked

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]

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]

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?

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.

Supposed to be trained?

Where is that stipulation in any law regarding self defense?