Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[Circe]

What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one minute mark of the video? What happens then?

You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.

Go to the one minute mark of the video and tell me what happens

Naaaaaaaah, it's your court, your ball. You keep bringing it up, mysteriously. You can't give people homework assignments on threads, really. Make your claim. I did watch it earlier, and whatever you saw (and by now I have no idea WHAT that was relating to) I didn't see anything except what I've already described. The speed of the event is what impressed me: it was a doom.

 

[beagle9]

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.

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.

 

[Vastator]

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

Wrong. And the primary act of violence was initiated by the assailant. And it cost him his life. Raising one's voice is not an act of violence.

 

[Circe]

Being pushed on pavement in an attack could be grounds for lawful lethal self-defense.

Well, duh. Of course it is!

He'll get off, IMO, but he's still a rotten person.

 

[beagle9]

Otherwise there should be an annual reassessment of ones background to ensure the mental stability of the permit holder or is that the case already ? If it is the case I wonder if this cat somehow fell through a crack if his mental was deteriorating.

Nothing of the sort disclosed. But don't let that stop you from casting from your hypotheticals.

Are we here to improve life and security in this country or to ignore it ??

 

[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.

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made.

There's a lot going wrong with that post.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made.

Arguing over a parking space does not warrant a hands on attack. Shoving someone onto the pavement can be lethal.

That escalation got him shot.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Are we here to improve life and security in this country or to ignore it ??

Help me understand what that means ?

 

[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?

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.

I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.

You don't know what the victims family had to do with the shooting? OMG, that's priceless

While I'm sure they may be concerned about him having to be run through the legal wringer to disprove the charges, which as of yet,thavent been brought against him... They have no relevance to the incident itself.

 

[Circe]

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made.

Maybe he'll pay...….but not in a Florida court, I bet. I was much impressed by his being knocked to the pavement so fast, and shooting back so fast. He's a bad guy, but yeah, he was in fear for his life. Or at least he could make that a darn good excuse. The video works for the shooter.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Emotions run high when you see someone attacking your family member whether verbally or physically. She may have been innocent because she was told to pull into the parking space by her boyfriend or husband, and that could have added to his rage when saw the shooter verbally assaulting her about the parking spot.

 

[Lewdog]

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

No... you didn't see it? A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it. She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did. He literally called the cops on her because of a coupon. He is on video too. He got fired.

There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think. And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation. Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?

I'm not even clear what you're arguing. Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?

And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing

No. I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person. NOT A MUGGING OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY MIGHT GET KILLED. Normal... non-assuming situations like customer service. If you don't know what I am talking about, you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks.

CVS fires employees for calling cops on customer - CNN Video

Woman called cops on a Black guy for wearing socks at pool.

Woman fired after calling the police on a black man for wearing socks in community pool

White female Yale student called the cops on Black student for sleeping on couch.

Police called on black student sleeping in her Yale dorm

These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered. It's simply cases where people over-reacted.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No. I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.
These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered. It's simply cases where people over-reacted.

The inverse is as true. So what.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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!

So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.

As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit

I'm not a savage.
I would have simply got back in the car and left.
Of course I'd never park in a handicap zone so it would never have become an issue.

 

[Vastator]

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

"By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.

On the other hand, while you hold the victim to this massive standard, the shooter who initiated the whole thing capping a guy who shoved him for threatening his woman and backing off is just fine.

Your standards are massively double

Without concise and clear audio, you have no way to demonstrate that the woman was being threatened. That's pure conjecture. What the video does however clearly show, is that the assailant was never threatened by the victim, until the assault began.
Try it this way....
Watch the video again from the begining, and press pause at the very first crime committed in it.

 

[Lewdog]

No. I'm saying that white people often over-act in simple situation if it is a black person instead of a white person.
These cases have nothing to do with being worried about being murdered. It's simply cases where people over-reacted.

The inverse is as true. So what.

It is?!?!

Show me some examples.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Beagle already explained my point to you. But you don't even know what my answer means? I find that impossible to believe.

So again, I'll walk you through this since you claim it keeps going over your head.

What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one minute mark of the video? What happens then?

Once you know that, I'll walk you through what it means to your question

You're insinuating that you know what was said.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Show me some examples.

4 Black Suspects Charged in Videotaped Beating of White Teenager in Chicago

 

[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.

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.

It isn't against the law to talk to strangers.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Show me some examples.

4 Black Suspects Charged in Videotaped Beating of White Teenager in Chicago

‘You Voted Trump?’ Black Mob Viciously Beats White Trump Voter