Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[HereWeGoAgain]

I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...

So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?

If he was just yelling?

I would have ignored him

If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story

You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him. I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not

Lets not forget about the children in the car. What if he would have been off balance when he made one of those shots and hit one of those kids?

Does shit for brains Florida law still protect him?

The bottom line here is a man defending a woman and children is dead, and Florida law protects the shooter.

The shooter is not only a coward, but in the eyes of those children, whom he has now terrorized for life, is a murderer, but in any grown ass man with a pair is a coward and a murderer, and in the eyes of God is a murderer.

In the eyes of Florida is a hero. But then lets consider who we're discussing here.

I disagree on your accusations about Florida law. This isn't a stand your ground situation. This was a staged situation by the shooter. It was murder

Like I've said a dozen times in this thread....
The guy was justified in shooting his assailant but I dont believe he should have.
Was the guy an asshole? Sure he was but the law is on his side.

 

[kaz]

It sailed over Lewdog's head, but that's what the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment.

Lewdog thinks the eighth is a power of government that government can use the eighth as justification for passing laws to control citizens. That is NOT what the Constitution is

I never said that.

I know exactly what the 8th Amendment is. I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime.

Lewdog: "I've said to people in this thread probably 20 times now that the punishment must fit the severity of the crime"

BY THE GOVERNMENT.

You said it was a violation of his Constitutional rights that he was shot by another citizen. That has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

Damn you're stupid

You dumbass, I've said this to you several times now as well. No the 8th Amendment does not protect ones person from another person, but they share the SAME PRINCIPLE. If you think the 8th Amendment is justified and makes sense, you should think the same should take place in other parts of life.

You said that shooting the shover was a violation of the eighth amendment. If you want to admit now you were wrong, that's fine. But don't pretend you didn't say that

No I did not.

Show me where I said that. I said they share the SAME PRINCIPLE.

And that's ridiculous too. There is no principle that you have Constitutional rights ... from other citizens ...

You don't

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hugely is not a word, dumbass!

.

I used ii as a Trumpism.....but nevertheless to prove your lack of depth to the forum.....bigly

hugely (ˈhjuːdʒlɪ) adv

very much; enormously

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
hugely

 

[kaz]

I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.

that is the beauty of concealed carry

True. And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC

still have not proved that yet have ya

Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds

so you are saying you still can not offer any real proof and resort to that same lame response

Tell me what happens at the one minute mark of the video. What I said is clear and you're full of shit.

And BTW, it's moronic to go on message boards and tell people to STFU unless they can provide "proof."

I provided a damned good argument though. I just got tired of repeating it. So if you want to be intentionally dumb, work for it.

What happens at the one minute mark of the video, then I'll help you see the direct relevance of it to my argument

 

[kaz]

Actually, yelling (threatening someone) is assault – it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony; battery is physical contact, a felony.

And in Florida either warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense when the person attacked has a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death from the attacker, even if that attack is verbal in nature only.

You have no idea what the guy was saying.
Battery,what the black guy did is assault

You have no idea what the law is: there is no difference between yelling and assault – ‘big’ or otherwise.

Yelling can be perceived as a threat, justifying the use of deadly force as self-defense; physical contact (battery) is not required to justify the use of deadly force in Florida.

Yelling at someone is not assault.

Not unless you're threatening them, which he was. It was a full grown man and a woman who was yelling at her over where she parked. Her boyfriend had every right and responsibility to protect her

So you were there?

Go to the one minute mark of the video, what happens?

 

[Lewdog]

What in the fuck are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Right, but that isn't the point you made. You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot. The government did not shoot him. That's just stupid

No I didn't. I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.

I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment. I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault. Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle. They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.

Of course they don't share the same principle. No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens. It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens. It's a limit on government power.

For example, government cannot restrict free speech. However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television. No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens. It's a horrible argument

What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle? It's pretty simple. In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing. The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things. Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments. The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You have no idea if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

The evidence, injuries and eye witness testimony supported this.

 

[kaz]

So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?

I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.

It's also a good way to get shot standing outside someone's wife's car yelling at her for where she parked. Or in this case, it's a good way to get to shoot someone, which was his goal

No...that would be murder.

Yes, it was murder. That's my point. I carry, and I badly want to avoid ever using my gun. I don't view life as a video game where the goal is to kill someone and have it legally justified so you don't get in trouble. The guilt that I staged the shooting would haunt me forever. That's what awaits this guy if he has a soul.

When he carried and repeatedly initiated aggression, a shooting was going to happen. Yes, it was murder

Thats not what I said.
Had the guy came out of the store and shot the guy arguing with his wife that would have been murder.

Cool. Now you have anything on my point other than you don't get it? Go to the one minute mark of the video and listen to the next 20 seconds or so. The store owner will explain it to you

 

[Lewdog]

What in the fuck are you talking about? I never said murder was a federal law. However the 8th Amendment gives citizens protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Right, but that isn't the point you made. You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot. The government did not shoot him. That's just stupid

No I didn't. I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.

I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment. I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault. Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle. They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.

Of course they don't share the same principle. No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens. It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens. It's a limit on government power.

For example, government cannot restrict free speech. However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television. No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens. It's a horrible argument

Firing an employee isn't the same thing...

 

[kaz]

How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?

I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I haven't either, and hope I never will be.

But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted

You get in the car and drive away

Getting your family in the car while a psycho is screaming at you over where you parked is not as trivial a task as you present it.

So you advocate incredible discipline and completely ignoring the threat of a guy threatening you and your family.

On the other hand, you go from if you get touched, you can use lethal force.

You're just arguing like a moonbat.

And you don't give a shit at all that the guy staged the whole thing by repeatedly initiating confrontation with people while armed intending to aim to kill. You're fine with that he planned to kill someone and just didn't know who. And you're not worried this guy is screaming at your wife and your children are there.

You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one no matter how stupid it is?

She was in the car all she had to do was stay in the car or leave

the guy was not in any way a threat to her life just because he was yelling

When I am carrying and I see something like that I remove myself from the situation. I don't care if some asshole swears at me or calls me names

I know that because I am armed I am held to a higher standard

And yet you're arguing that a gun carrier can initiate a hostile situation while carrying and continue to repeat that scenario until they get to shoot someone

I don't know what he did or didn't do yet.

I do know he didn't pull his gun until AFTER he was assaulted

In a situation he repeatedly staged

 

[kaz]

Statistics say that when blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks, the issue is racist whites. And I called you a race whore. Nailed it!

Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct. Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year? And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?

Guess what? If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer. Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?

Now those are REAL statistics.

What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?

I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. First, I'm not a Democrat. Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.

I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.

Lewdog: "I'm not a Democrat"

You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf. No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties. You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that. Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are

Race whoring? Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring. I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them. I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was. Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.

You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese. I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you. But only from whites. It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party. And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred

 

[Lewdog]

You have no idea if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

The evidence, injuries and eye witness testimony supported this.

No it was inconclusive. However when it comes to a murder conviction it takes Beyond a Reasonable doubt. That means the jury has to be 100% convinced in order to convict.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hugely is not a word, dumbass!

.

I used ii as a Trumpism.....but nevertheless to prove your lack of depth to the forum.....bigly

hugely (ˈhjuːdʒlɪ) adv

very much; enormously

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
hugely

You still did not use it correctly! Nevertheless, you are still a dumbass!

 

[kaz]

So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?

If he was just yelling?

I would have ignored him

If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story

You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him. I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not

Lets not forget about the children in the car. What if he would have been off balance when he made one of those shots and hit one of those kids?

Does shit for brains Florida law still protect him?

The bottom line here is a man defending a woman and children is dead, and Florida law protects the shooter.

The shooter is not only a coward, but in the eyes of those children, whom he has now terrorized for life, is a murderer, but in any grown ass man with a pair is a coward and a murderer, and in the eyes of God is a murderer.

In the eyes of Florida is a hero. But then lets consider who we're discussing here.

I disagree on your accusations about Florida law. This isn't a stand your ground situation. This was a staged situation by the shooter. It was murder

Like I've said a dozen times in this thread....
The guy was justified in shooting his assailant but I dont believe he should have.
Was the guy an asshole? Sure he was but the law is on his side.

While iffy because he didn't appear to be in any danger when he shot the guy, I could see that as gray if the shooter had not been repeating the scenario he repeatedly staged where he initiated hostility. Given that, it's murder

 

[Lewdog]

Obviously you don't understand murder statistics along with sexual assault statistics will NEVER be correct. Do you have any idea how many murders go unsolved per year? And do you know who happens to make up the demographic of most of those unsolved murders?

Guess what? If you can't solve a murder, then you can't assign the demographic of the murderer. Even worse yet, do you know how many missing people go unfound every year?

Now those are REAL statistics.

What does it have to do with your Democrat party plan of only disarming honest citizens while doing nothing about the criminals?

I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. First, I'm not a Democrat. Secondly I'm not for disarming honest citizens.

I'm for common sense laws like not letting fucking people like those getting Federal disability for a mental condition being allowed to buy guns for one... which was the VERY first executive order Trump signed when he became President.

Lewdog: "I'm not a Democrat"

You gave up the right to that lie when you took up race whoring on their behalf. No one is so inanely stupid that you'd believe this country has become stereotypical Alabama in the fifties. You have to be a partisan sheep to believe that. Give up the lie now that you've clearly established what you are

Race whoring? Sorry when I see the facts, it's not whoring. I'll send you several books proving it, but I no you wouldn't read them. I've shared stats with you that show 61% of murders in the U.S. in 2016 didn't even get solved, so they had no idea what the demographic of the killer was. Yet you refused to accept the stats you referenced could be wrong.

You want whites to be racist, it's a path to free government cheese. I don't have an agenda. I just realize this country is about as non-racist as there is in human history, and you see racism all around you. But only from whites. It's an obvious political agenda for you on behalf of the Democrat party. And you're such a partisan shill you don't see it's starting to work against you because you're so blinded by partisan hatred

I don't "want" anyone to be racist. The fact is, racism is still prevalent. If you think this country is as non-racist as it has ever been in human history, you need to start reading REAL educational books that rely on REAL statistics and REAL studies.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I agree. But only one decided to raise the stakes to violence. And it cost him his life...

So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?

If he was just yelling?

I would have ignored him

If he put his hands on them or tried to open the car doors that's a different story

You'd ignore some nutcase yelling at your family for where you parked, but if he touched you, you'd waste him. I'd say that's a good argument, but wow, it's not

Whats so hard to understand? Yelling you leave,manhandling they get shot.

How do you just leave when he's screaming at your wife with your kids there over where you parked?

I hope you're never in that situation because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I haven't either, and hope I never will be.

But the murderer staged a situation by being armed and initiating aggression and repeating it until he got what he wanted

So you would immediately attack someone who is yelling at your wife?
I wouldnt. At the most I would place myself between the guy and my Wife and Kids and try and find out what the problem was.
But if he was standing five foot from the car I'd just get in and leave.
For all I know he's armed. And the most important thing is to get my family as far away as possible from a bad situation.
I mean I dont know about you but the last thing I want is gun play around my family.

Oh...and I have been in a situation like that.
Had three would be home invaders...and no I didnt shoot them.
All they needed to see was that sawed off 870 come into view around the door jam.
I couldnt bring myself to shoot em in the back as they ran away.

Maybe Markeis would be alive today had he ran away.
Of course he would have left his girl and kids in a bad situation....but then thats why you try to avoid conflict when you have loved ones in harms way.

 

[jillian]

And therein lies the problem with gun loving bullies stand your ground Insanity

Kindergartens golden rules will keep you happy and hole free.

That isn’t responsive

Keep your hands to yourself.

Dont assault - don't get shot - don't get dead.

Ask Treyvon .....ask McGLocklin,...... Mike Brown, etc

The death penalty isn’t appropriate for an assault.
And you don’t get to shoot someone who isn’t a threat.

Paycho. Thanks for pricing my point

Could you imagine how many people would go out and shoot someone and then when the cops show up, they just say, "He said he was going to kill me and I felt threatened."

that's exactly right.

and we've seen it

 

[kaz]

Again, you don't even know what the Constitution is. The Constitution is a LIMIT on Federal power. The GOVERNMENT cannot give you cruel and unusual punishment. That's what the eighth says. The Constitution is not a power of the Federal government to go out and control citizens behavior between each other.

How do you not know what the Constitution is? That's pathetic

Holy shit man. I NEVER SAID THAT. The 8th Amendment limits ALL COURTS, federal, state, and local from doling out cruel and unusual punishment. It is extended from the Federal government to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Right, but that isn't the point you made. You argued that it violated the Constitution because he was shot. The government did not shoot him. That's just stupid

No I didn't. I was arguing with Skull Pilot because he said he didn't care that the guy got shot and killed just for a simple assault.

I asked if he supported the Constitution... which has the 8th Amendment that protects citizens from Cruel and Unusual punishment. I said if he supports that, then he should care that the guy was shot and killed for simple assault. Not because the 8th Amendment protects him for that, but because they share the same principle. They aren't the same, nor does the 8th Amendment cover it, but they follow the same principle, so saying you agree with the rights the 8th Amendment gives, but then saying you don't think it is a fair principle in other parts of society is being a hypocrite.

Of course they don't share the same principle. No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens. It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens. It's a limit on government power.

For example, government cannot restrict free speech. However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television. No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens. It's a horrible argument

What the fuck do you mean they don't share the same principle? It's pretty simple. In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing. The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things. Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments. The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.

I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution. You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point. The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens. The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power. You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

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

However, it would train people to avoid rather than create conflict as the test way to prevent shootings, however. And the goal is to avoid a shooting if at all possible, not just justify a shooting.

If you were carrying, would you start screaming at another guys's woman over where she was parked? You see any risk of that turning into a shooting?

I don't yell at anyone

but then again yelling at a person is not a crime while forcibly assaulting a person is

Threatening people is a crime.

So seriously, you'd let someone scream at your wife for where you'd parked.

Again with the stupid argument

Shoving someone who is threatening your wife is an unreasonable escallation

Killing someone who shoves you for yelling at his wife is perfectly good.

That's totally idiotic

Who threatened anyone?

Go to the one minute mark of the video

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you are saying if a guy with a gun was standing outside the car your wife and kids are sitting in and yelling at them, you'd not do anything about it?

I sure as fuck wouldnt assault him!!!
Thats a good way to get shot.......oh wait.

that is the beauty of concealed carry

True. And people who initiate aggression to kill people if they respond is the downside of CC

still have not proved that yet have ya

Go to the one minute mark of the video and watch the next 20 seconds