Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[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.

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[kaz]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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."

 

[Wry Catcher]

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]

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

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]

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?

Of course

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

I know I would.

 

[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?

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.

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]

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?

Would add credence to a retreat.

 

[beagle9]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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

Oh bullshit!

 

[OODA_Loop]

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]

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

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

In your mind maybe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

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."

Having stolen goods on him at school has become a capital crime? That dog won't hunt. Give the shooter the needle.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

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."

Having stolen goods on him at school has become a capital crime? That dog won't hunt. Give the shooter the needle.

WTF?
Kinda early to be drinking dont ya think?

 

[kaz]

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

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.

Bull shit, there weren't separate events. There was one scenario initiated by the murderer

 

[kaz]

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.

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