race race race race

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Stand your ground was supposed to make it so you didn't have to retreat.

Breaks make it so you can avoid a collision and not be run off the road.

This is not a self-defense situation, you complete idiot transgender jackass.

 

[Curried Goats]

I said sit, asshole. You're of no significance

I don't answer to you. You can only expose yourself darling.

 

[Curried Goats]

Breaks make it so you can avoid a collision and not be run off the road.

This is not a self-defense situation, you complete idiot transgender jackass.

Which is a perfectly fine option to choose but my question was whether or not you believe the right to self defense still exists when you're being rammed off the road. I just wanted clarification of your stated beliefs.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't answer to you. You can only expose yourself darling.

You just did, shemale

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you have no right to self defense when being rammed off the road?

With a firearm....in a traffic situation???



You are dumber than a pile of wet rats.

Your first duty in that situation is to ALL drivers around you. STOP YOUR VEHICLE....apply the brakes.

Then, if assholes continue, and approach your vehicle, and only then, will self-defense apply.

 

[Curried Goats]

You just did, shemale

What a rational retort. I'm impressed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Which is a perfectly fine option to choose but my question was whether or not you believe the right to self defense still exists when you're being rammed off the road. I just wanted clarification of your stated beliefs.

See post #65, you dumb fuck.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What a rational retort. I'm impressed.

You just did again, shemale. Eventually you'll get it

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What a rational retort. I'm impressed.

Do you identify as female? Do you identify as Black?

 

[Curried Goats]

With a firearm....in a traffic situation???




You are dumber than a pile of wet rats.

Your first duty in that situation is to ALL drivers around you. STOP YOUR VEHICLE....apply the brakes.

Then, if assholes continue, and approach your vehicle, and only the, will self-defense apply.

Did anyone see Booty answer the simple yes or no question or did them see him laugh and dance his way around it? Whether you're in traffic or standing on the sidewalk, when defending yourself the duty to take care with the lives of innocent bystanders is a obligation that runs parallel to your right to self defense. If you're standing in middle of Time Square and someone tries to murder you, you should try to not hit anyone else in defense of yourself but you still have the right to self defense. He didn't shoot and kill someone in another car. He shot and killed someone in the car trying to ram him. If anything it demonstrates gun control.

 

[OKTexas]

And suddenly braking doesn't risk a crash? Seems the result of any ensuing mess is still on the person initiating the confrontation.

He didn't shoot the aggressive driver, did he. He killed someone in the back seat. And where did I mention sudden breaking? Do you always suddenly break when you stop a vehicle?

.

 

[Curried Goats]

He didn't shoot the aggressive driver, did he. He killed someone in the back seat. And where did I mention sudden breaking? Do you always suddenly break when you stop a vehicle?

I was extrapolating from a scenario where someone is actively trying to ram you off the road. Do you indicate and then gently pull to the side?

 

[BlackSand]

Try shooting at a moving target. I'm sure from his point of view he was just shooting at the car to get them to stop.

.

If you read the article ... The defendant said he was shooting at them because he and his girlfriend were nervous
about any confrontation after the Goerge Floyd event ... And all he saw was a truck (then he said car) of white people flipping him off and driving "towards" him.

To shoot a passenger in the back seat of vehicle driving towards you ... With no damage to either vehicle.
It's not like they ran into each other ... And the front quarter panels would be past each other.

I mean there may be more evidence not discussed in the article ... But the jury of his peers heard that evidence and came back with a verdict.
The rest of the article kind of reads like an opinion piece more than a description of the crime(s) involved.

.​

 

[OKTexas]

So you have no right to self defense when being rammed off the road? That's your argument?

There is nothing in the OP or the link that says the two vehicles collided. Ya want to invent something else?

.

 

[Curried Goats]

There is nothing in the OP or the link that says the two vehicles collided. Ya want to invent something else?

.

I never claimed there was. I already said in a earlier post that it's on any shooter to prove that their shooting was a legitimate use of self defense (instead of the presumption of innocence normally afforded defendants) and that in this case there didn't seem to be much evidence of any attempted ramming. My argument was in regard to a hypothetical where we know someone is trying to ram him off the road, him shooting into the vehicle and killing a passenger inside is self defense.

 

[OKTexas]

I was extrapolating from a scenario where someone is actively trying to ram you off the road. Do you indicate and then gently pull to the side?

Wow, you have an active imagination, you safely stop your vehicle. Are you really this stupid?

Did anyone see Booty answer the simple yes or no question or did them see him laugh and dance his way around it?

That quote proves you're poorly educated. So maybe you really are that stupid.

.

 

[BlackSand]

I never claimed there was. I already said in a earlier post that it's on any shooter to prove that their shooting was a legitimate use of self defense (instead of the presumption of innocence normally afforded defendants) and that in this case their didn't seem to be much evidence of any attempted ramming. My argument was in regard to a hypothetical where we know someone is trying to ram him off the road, him shooting into the vehicle and killing a passenger inside is self defense.

.

You don't throw out the "presumption of innocence" ...
At that point it is the prosecution's job to prove any guilt, they took it to trial ... And the jury came back with a verdict.

If you want to get bent about statistics ... The statistics in the article do not address anything other than the race of the people involved.
They are a means of racial division, and that is all they are, because they do not address any of the crimes or actual conditions.

Stop pretending something actually means something it doesn't, simply to suit an unsupported narrative ...
And for no other reason that racial division.

Do you seriously think it was a bunch of Black men sitting around a table at the FBI ...
When they decided it was going to be a great idea to start dividing crime statistics by race?
Statistics like that do not address crimes, and don't truly serve anything other than a per-capita equation.

.​

 

[OKTexas]

I never claimed there was. I already said in a earlier post that it's on any shooter to prove that their shooting was a legitimate use of self defense (instead of the presumption of innocence normally afforded defendants) and that in this case there didn't seem to be much evidence of any attempted ramming. My argument was in regard to a hypothetical where we know someone is trying to ram him off the road, him shooting into the vehicle and killing a passenger inside is self defense.

So you were trying to deflect from the facts presented, GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wow, you have an active imagination, you safely stop your vehicle. Are you really this stupid?

Safely stop your vehicle as someone is actively ramming you? What's safe about being rammed?

That quote proves you're poorly educated. So maybe you really are that stupid.

Or swipe text got a little wonky. Have we reached the point where supposition and personal attacks are all you have left in the bag?

 

[Curried Goats]

.

You don't throw out the "presumption of innocence" ...
At that point it is the prosecution's job to prove any guilt, they took it to trial ... And the jury came back with a verdict.​

That's not how it works when you shoot someone. There can be a presumption of innocence of whether or not you shot anyone at all, but once it's been established that you shot someone then the burden is on you to prove shooting someone was necessary.

If you want to get bent about statistics ... The statistics in the article do not address anything other than the race of the people involved.
They are a means of racial division, and that is all they are, because they do not address any of the crimes or actual conditions.​

You didn't mention any statistics there....

Stop pretending something actually means something it doesn't, simply to suit an unsupported narrative ...
And for no other reason that racial division.​

I haven't mentioned the race of the people involved once yet.

Do you seriously think it was a bunch of Black men sitting around a table at the FBI ...
When they decided it was going to be a great idea to start dividing crime statistics by race?
Statistics like that do not address crimes, and don't truly serve anything other than a per-capita equation.​

Is there something you need to get off your chest buddy?