Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[kaz]

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.

Zimmerman is another example. Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.

He was lawful though.

Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead. I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.

The guy wanted to kill someone. And he did. That isn't what the second is about

The guy wanted to kill someone.

got any evidence of that

does the da have any evidence of that

Go to the one minute mark of the video

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill. That's murder

The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression. Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.

Duh. The victim didn't initiate lethal aggression either. Only the shooter did that.

Step 1: You initiate aggression

Step 2: You get aggression back

Step 3: You shoot to kill

You keep repeating that scenario until step 2 happens and you have the dead body you wanted

You have to prove that that was his intention.

 

[jon_berzerk]

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

Being tactically smart and lawful can be two different things.

Zimmerman is another example. Idiot for leaving the vehicle to pursue Martin.

He was lawful though.

Staging a situation where you initiate aggression into the situation, you are armed and shoot to kill and repeating that scenario over and over is guaranteed to end up in someone being dead. I can't believe that doesn't even rattle you.

The guy wanted to kill someone. And he did. That isn't what the second is about

The guy wanted to kill someone.

got any evidence of that

does the da have any evidence of that

Go to the one minute mark of the video

so what where is the proof he "wanted to kill someone"

 

[kaz]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

Looks black to me.

He's clearly black

 

[kaz]

The shooter repeated a scenario where he initiated the aggression and shot to kill. That's murder

The initiated aggression was not lethal aggression. Lethal didn't happen until after the hands on attack.

Duh. The victim didn't initiate lethal aggression either. Only the shooter did that.

Step 1: You initiate aggression

Step 2: You get aggression back

Step 3: You shoot to kill

You keep repeating that scenario until step 2 happens and you have the dead body you wanted

You have to prove that that was his intention.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

 

[JoeMoma]

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

Yes, he could have. But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low. But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Thats the thing though.
The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday. If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?

That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that. You have no basis to say that.

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me. He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed. That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about

If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
That doesnt ad up.

Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.

I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

So the answer to the question is that it is neither.

It is neither murder, nor justified.

It's one of those miserable ambiguous cases, where it isn't clear cut either way.

The man clearly was not engaged in murder, because he had no intention of killing anyone up to the point where he was attacked.

However, at the time of the shooting, the attacker had no intention of continuing violence. He only pushed the man away from his wife. So it was not a justified defense... but the shooter was not trying to engage in murder. He was responding to being provoked.

I hate cases like these, because both sides have a valid argument.

All that said, and it is all true..... the person that caused the problem was the guy who parked illegal in a handicap spot. Why do people break the law, and then freak out when people call them on it? They should have simply moved their car.

All of this could have been avoided, if they simply followed the rules.

Teach your kids to follow the rules, and they won't end up a "victim" when they break the rules.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse

Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?

No, it’s rightists who always spoil a civil discussion by making it partisan, this post being one of many examples.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

Yes, he could have. But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low. But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Thats the thing though.
The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday. If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?

That's a big stretch that the guy who was shot had to know that. You have no basis to say that.

All I can say is that if I was armed and I initiated aggression like the shooter did, then no one I grew up with would say I did the right thing. And I think the'd be right.

That someone can stage a murder and those of you who are defending it are defending it is inexplicable to me. He created a situation where he introduced aggression into the situation and kept repeating it while armed. That was a guaranteed death, which is not what the second amendment is about

If the guy was a problem why didnt the owner have him removed from the premises a long time ago?
That doesnt ad up.

Thats beside the point. You dont attack someone over a verbal confrontation.

I agree, don't attack someone over a verbal confrontation; however, if some kook is in my wife's face screaming at her........I might make a mistake in the heat of the moment.

Not in this case.
The guy was standing a good five feet away from the car clearly indicating his wasnt going to get violent.
Had he been all up in her face I could see it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

A location the shooter will soon become familiar with: Lake Butler.

 

[rightwinger]

The man who was standing was backing away
Shooting someone for pushing you to the ground is not......stand your ground

 

[Unkotare]

Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.

It’s not – should have gone in R and E – but politics gets more traffic.

And there is a moral argument to be made that deadly force should never be used, that it’s always wrong, even in self-defense.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The man who was standing was backing away
Shooting someone for pushing you to the ground is not......stand your ground

Had he turned and ran maybe.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.

He didn't deserve to die for that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The man who was standing was backing away
Shooting someone for pushing you to the ground is not......stand your ground

Even if he is on the ground?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.

He didn't deserve to die for that.

He didnt die because of a parking spot.

 

[Unkotare]

Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick and park in a handicap spot if you’re not really handicapped.

He didn't deserve to die for that.

True, but if he (or the wife if she was driving) hadn’t been a dick to start with, the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.

It’s not – should have gone in R and E – but politics gets more traffic.

And there is a moral argument to be made that deadly force should never be used, that it’s always wrong, even in self-defense.

There are plenty reasons to shoot someone.
In this case the guy overreacted but his actions appear to be within the law.

 

[Unkotare]

How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.

It’s not – should have gone in R and E – but politics gets more traffic.

And there is a moral argument to be made that deadly force should never be used, that it’s always wrong, even in self-defense.

That’s a contradiction.