Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[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?

Concealed permit holder right ?? Are you suggesting that concealed carry permits are found in cracker jack boxes ??

Where is there any stipulation on being trained to overcome emotion?

An NRA pistol safety class does not train people to overcome emotion

 

[kaz]

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.

And yet blacks actually murder far more whites than whites murder black and that isn't an "over-react(ion)." How does that make sense? Are blacks racist? Is that why they do it?

 

[Circe]

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would accost a woman and physically assault someone else got dead

No, it was the other way around. It was the bad white guy who shot the good black father-of-family. It's a BAD narrative, but it appears to have happened that way.

 

[Vastator]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...

Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.

Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.

But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.

Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.

The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.

 

[kaz]

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.

Swish, you didn't address the point. You said the guy did not threaten her. If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat. I sure the fuck would. I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening

 

[Lewdog]

Sheriffs do effect arrests. Not in this case due to the reasonable doubt of a SYG defense.

First, it would be 'affect' not 'effect.'

No, effect is correct in this case. You really can't say sheriffs "affect" arrests. They either effect them or they don't arrest the guy. Sorry, you just hit my editor button.

"Affect is usually a verb, and it means to impact or change. Effect is usually a noun, an effect is the result of a change."

Affect vs. Effect

It is affect, not effect. A sheriff "affects" an arrest because an arrest is a noun in that sentence not a verb.

 

[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?

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.

What are you talking about? We were talking about the victim's family, not the shooters family

The shooter IS the victim.

 

[kaz]

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.

Again, I warned you. I'm not putting you on ignore, but our discussion in this thread is over. Again, that you keep bringing up that everything I say is conjecture while you're able to say what happened is ridiculous. As is your assertion that everything needs to be proven in a message board discussion.

See you in another thread. We likely agree with more than we disagree on

 

[Skull Pilot]

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would accost a woman and physically assault someone else got dead

No, it was the other way around. It was the bad white guy who shot the good black father-of-family. It's a BAD narrative, but it appears to have happened that way.

I saw the the guy forcibly shove the smaller man to the ground

the assault was initiated by the guy who got shot

 

[Lewdog]

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest

Who will cure cancer now ?

There are a million Saint McGlocktons out there....one of em is sure to find a cure.
....before getting capped for being an asshole.

Did you even read it?

The mugshot person was arrested when they were 18, and are now 28. Their arrest is TEN years old.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Again, I warned you. I'm not putting you on ignore, but our discussion in this thread is over. Again, that you keep bringing up that everything I say is conjecture while you're able to say what happened is ridiculous. As is your assertion that everything needs to be proven in a message board discussion.

See you in another thread. We likely agree with more than we disagree on

Fair enough.

 

[Circe]

They sure get used at the Wife and I's favorite Cajun joint.
They have I believe six of them..
All parked in by what appear to be able bodied black people.
They hop out of their Escalades,Lexus and a host of other high end vehicles and waddle on in showing no signs of disability whatsoever.

Interesting post. This implies the blacks have figured out that they don't need to obey the rules, and they are probably right ---- well, except in Clearwater, FL.

Though I doubt that habit actually works well for them, in general. Certainly it didn't work well in Clearwater.

 

[G.T.]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...

Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.

Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.

But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.

Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.

The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.

No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot

 

[kaz]

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.

That's a slant of what I'm arguing.

What am I insinuating I know?

What is my argument that is what was said?

Hint, Beagle already told you.

Another hint. It's butt obvious.

If you disagree with my point, argue my point. Don't ignore it. I have a pretty good reason to know what was said. But you know that. You're pretending to be dumb, but I know that you're not

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.

Doesn't make it illegal either

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead

Do you think we should follow the Constitution? Is the Constitution important?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Swish, you didn't address the point. You said the guy did not threaten her. If a man went up to your wife and started screaming at her in a parking lot, you wouldn't view that as a threat. I sure the fuck would. I frankly don't believe you saying you believe that is not threatening

So in response you escalate the situation?
How'd that turn out for Saint McGlockton?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.

Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again

Oh yeah that's what usually happens in a fight right? When you knock someone on the ground and gain an advantage, you back up to allow them to get up? GTFO....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest

Who will cure cancer now ?

There are a million Saint McGlocktons out there....one of em is sure to find a cure.
....before getting capped for being an asshole.

Did you even read it?

The mugshot person was arrested when they were 18, and are now 28. Their arrest is TEN years old.

So?

 

[Vastator]

Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...

Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.

Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.

But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.

Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.

The victim was on the ground, and going nowhere. What video are you watching? Watch the one at the beginning of the thread. Pause it the moment you see a crime being committed. In that frame you will see the assailant, knocking the victim to the ground.

No, I see a man who was a threat to a car with a woman defending her children in the car, I see testimony and video of a bystander who said he ran into the store to warn others because the situation was escalated, then I see a father approaching a man who's wife is protecting her car of children from....and judging by former testimony, likely threatened to shoot her...and then pushing the man away from his wife and family, then backing up as the man even started reaching for his waist...continued backing up as the man pointed and shot as opposed to using his gun as a deterrant he used it to murder a man who was protecting his family...and by past reports, he couldnt fucking wait to use that gun, and you call him victim. He has a mental illness about a fucking parking spot

There is no room for conjecture, and emotion in a debate whose outcome has such serious ramifications. Sorry bro. You know I love ya. But you’re straying far from the facts presented in the video, and falling back on emotion.

 

[kaz]

It depends on the situation there sport. I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?

Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible. You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting. If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation. I mean duh. How do you not get that?

I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity. Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights. What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?

Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.

Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder. That isn't how you act when you're armed

Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.

Sure as shit does. I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason

Thank you. I can't believe any second amendment supporter wouldn't feel that way.

And in this case, the shooter did more than interject himself into a confrontation, he started it by yelling at the woman in the parking lot.

I always argue to leftists that they don't have actual standards because they only apply their standards to Republicans, never themselves. A standard is something you apply to yourself first, or it's just an attack, not a standard.

That's why I won't back down from the argument that if you're carrying, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to avoid conflicts and you only produce the gun when you can't. Screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot because you don't like where she parked isn't it