Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[Lewdog]

Why do you cherry pick what the sheriff said?

He SPECIFICALLY said that he didn't like the fact that the man's actions fit within the bookends of the DYG law but he didn't like it? He is very clearly stating that he thinks the guy was wrong and murdered the victim.

No he said the actions were lawful but he didn't necessarily support the law and his personal feeling on the law are irrelevant, He has to uphold the law.

No, not what he said. I'll sure be glad when the prosecutor puts out his statement that he is going to indict this guy and get this over with.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Irony

There is no irony.
You were asked simple questions several times by several people and you avoided answering or gave irrelevant, stupid answers each time.

And don't celebrate until the indictment is actually handed down....if that happens.

Obviously you've already convicted the man in your own mind regardless of the facts or of what happens.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No, not what he said. I'll sure be glad when the prosecutor puts out his statement that he is going to indict this guy and get this over with.

It is what he said....this is within the bookends of the law. No arrest. No charges.

The Sheriff laid out and argued the defense. There is no doubt the sheriff sought counsel before hand.

Did you watch the press conference ?

 

[Lewdog]

Irony

There is no irony.
You were asked simple questions several times by several people and you avoided answering or gave irrelevant, stupid answers each time.

And don't celebrate until the indictment is actually handed down....if that happens.

Obviously you've already convicted the man in your own mind regardless of what happens.

Really what questions did I not answer?

OMG are you following me in this thread trolling my posts!?!?!?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Really what questions did I not answer?
OMG are you following me in this thread trolling my posts!?!?!?

No jackass.
When I post 35 EMOJI's in the same post, then I'll be like you....a trolling imbecile.
Hold your breath

Until then, I'm just discussing the topic......try it


btw...did you look up Assault & Battery yet? You should.
You don't know a DAMN thing about crime and the law.
But your mouth runs like it's got diarrhea.

 

[Rambunctious]

I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...imo

 

[Lewdog]

Really what questions did I not answer?
OMG are you following me in this thread trolling my posts!?!?!?

No jackass.
When I post 35 EMOJI's in the same post, then I'll be like you....a trolling imbecile.
Hold your breath

Until then, I'm just discussing the topic......try it


btw...did you look up Assault & Battery yet? You should.
You don't know a DAMN thing about crime and the law.

When you make stupid ass comments yeah you deserve 30 emoji responses.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...

He thought he did. And as the Sheriff said that's all that mattered.

 

[Flash]

[Q

Obviously you've already convicted the man in your own mind regardless of the facts or of what happens.

Probably because the "victim" was Black and the shooter was White.

If it had been the other way around Moon Bats like him would be claiming it was justified.

If it was Black on Black, like most shootings in this country, then the Moon Bats would have ignored it. Just like they ignore all Black on Black and Black on White crimes.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

When you make stupid ass comments yeah you deserve 30 emoji responses.

Or so say snowflakes like you.
And if that were true, most of your posts would be receiving hundreds of emoji's if that were the case.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Probably because the "victim" was Black and the shooter was White.
If it had been the other way around Moon Bats like him would be claiming it was justified.
If it was Black on Black, like most shootings in this country, then the Moon Bats would have ignored it. Just like they ignore all Black on Black and Black on White crimes.

Yeah, I'm assuming he's black and a racist

Especially since he insists the moron who did the shoving "dint do nuffin"

 

[kaz]

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

I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another. Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are. Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.

Yes, you brought it up for a specific reason. You're full of shit. The Constitution doesn't dictate interactions between citizens and it doesn't empower the Federal government to enforce it's own limits on citizens. It just doesn't. You brought up the Constitution in a way that demonstrated that you have zero grasp of what the Constitution even is. It limits the power of government. Period

And despite me telling you 1,000 times I'm not saying the Constitution is for LAWS between person and person, you bring it up again. You realize you are just as bad as the people you just told you are done arguing with because they won't listen?

Word parsing. You said if you don't believe Constitutional laws apply between person and person, you don't believe in the Constitution

 

[kaz]

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

I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another. Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are. Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.

You don't get it.

Shooting to protect your own safety is not punishment for a crime

All I can tell you is that growing up in southwest Michigan is very different than wherever you're from.

1) We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification. Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously. No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all. That's begging for a shooting

2) If we're going to stretch rule one, it's far more likely to happen protecting our family. We might let you embarrass us even and we walk away. But you threaten our families like this guy did and that we will always stand up for them We rate protecting our families ABOVE protecting ourselves. You don't consider protecting your family a factor or that it's even your job

Entirely different worlds. Whatever

 

[Lewdog]

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

I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another. Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are. Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.

Yes, you brought it up for a specific reason. You're full of shit. The Constitution doesn't dictate interactions between citizens and it doesn't empower the Federal government to enforce it's own limits on citizens. It just doesn't. You brought up the Constitution in a way that demonstrated that you have zero grasp of what the Constitution even is. It limits the power of government. Period

And despite me telling you 1,000 times I'm not saying the Constitution is for LAWS between person and person, you bring it up again. You realize you are just as bad as the people you just told you are done arguing with because they won't listen?

Word parsing. You said if you don't believe Constitutional laws apply between person and person, you don't believe in the Constitution

No, that's not what I said at all. Why you continue to argue that I have no clue. Not once in this entire thread have I said the Constitution covers how a person deals with another person. Not one single time. Do you know what the word principle means?

 

[OODA_Loop]

1) We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification. Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously. No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all. That's begging for a shooting

The investigation revealed he looked at her car for tags or placard and she got indignant. Eyewitness say there was no threat.
He was well away from car.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.


My opinion:

Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.

I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.

The article and video of the incident are in the link below:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

media link from youtube:

The shooter can go fuck himself. Completely and totally unjustified, in fact he provoked the attack.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The shooter can go fuck himself. Completely and totally unjustified, in fact he provoked the attack.

Evidence does not support this.

 

[beagle9]

Neither was getting knocked down by a guy defending his woman from him who then backed off

He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......

The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

 

[beagle9]

The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...

Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Um, no.

I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.

The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.

It doesn't matter what the victim did in the past, in this attack he was the one physically assaulted ......

If he set up the attack, then it will matter.

 

[kaz]

He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......

The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

Who do you believe. Me, or your lyin eyes?

Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat. He just wanted the psycho away from his family. If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.

The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.

The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one