Woman-Beater Shot To Death In The Act

[Madeline]

From what little information I have, it sounds like the shooter is guilty of murder and should be treated like any murderer. Now if he asked the guy to stop and he pulled out a knife, it would be self-defense, but that doesn't sound like that's what happened.

I'm encouraged that people support the death penalty, but this isn't how it's done.

You are wrong. "Repelling deadly force" does not require that the assailant have a weapon.

Hitting someone is not deadly force.

Ever heard these terms, RGS? "One punch homicide"; "Beaten to death"; "Assault With Intent"?

C'mon now, I know you know better.

 

[xsited1]

Woman-Beater Shot To Death In The Act

From what little information I have, it sounds like the shooter is guilty of murder and should be treated like any murderer. Now if he asked the guy to stop and he pulled out a knife, it would be self-defense, but that doesn't sound like that's what happened.

I'm encouraged that people support the death penalty, but this isn't how it's done.

You are wrong. "Repelling deadly force" does not require that the assailant have a weapon.

Uh, no. The vigilante's life was not in danger and neither was the woman's. This guy is a murderer regardless of what you think.

Anything you want to tell us, Madeline? This story is a bit personal for you, eh?

 

[Article 15]

From what little information I have, it sounds like the shooter is guilty of murder and should be treated like any murderer. Now if he asked the guy to stop and he pulled out a knife, it would be self-defense, but that doesn't sound like that's what happened.

I'm encouraged that people support the death penalty, but this isn't how it's done.

You are wrong. "Repelling deadly force" does not require that the assailant have a weapon.

Uh, no. The vigilante's life was not in danger and neither was the woman's. This guy is a murderer regardless of what you think.

Anything you want to tell us, Madeline? This story is a bit personal for you, eh?

That is not a fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are wrong. "Repelling deadly force" does not require that the assailant have a weapon.

Hitting someone is not deadly force.

Ever heard these terms, RGS? "One punch homicide"; "Beaten to death"; "Assault With Intent"?

C'mon now, I know you know better.

There is absolutely NO evidence she was in danger of death or even serious bodily harm. Once again, YOU get a clue.... you don't want the State after a lengthy trial and special death penalty procedures to kill people but you think some guy off the street has the right to murder anyone he disagrees with if they are doing something you disagree with. I got that about right?

Further we have evidence that in 10 prior fights he never seriously hurt her or killed her.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I hope the cops never find the shooter, and I doubt they ever will. I don't imagine they're looking too hard.

I do.

Many of these "heroes" are generally lowlives themselves. And vigilante "justice" isn't something I agree with.

Yeah better to let a woman get beaten to death.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are wrong. "Repelling deadly force" does not require that the assailant have a weapon.

Uh, no. The vigilante's life was not in danger and neither was the woman's. This guy is a murderer regardless of what you think.

Anything you want to tell us, Madeline? This story is a bit personal for you, eh?

That is not a fact.

It is a fact that in 10 prior incidents the man had never seriously harmed his girlfriend or killed her or anyone else.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I hope the cops never find the shooter, and I doubt they ever will. I don't imagine they're looking too hard.

I do.

Many of these "heroes" are generally lowlives themselves. And vigilante "justice" isn't something I agree with.

Yeah better to let a woman get beaten to death.

There is no evidence that would happen, In fact the available evidence tells us in 10 prior incidents that HAD not happened.

 

[Article 15]

Uh, no. The vigilante's life was not in danger and neither was the woman's. This guy is a murderer regardless of what you think.

Anything you want to tell us, Madeline? This story is a bit personal for you, eh?

That is not a fact.

It is a fact that in 10 prior incidents the man had never seriously harmed his girlfriend or killed her or anyone else.

It is?

You have read the details of all ten incidents or are you just talking out of your ass?

 

[Anachronism]

Honestly, as much as I enjoy the fact that this abuser is now DEAD, this is not a textbook case for the use of firearms in self-defense.

No warning. No willingness to stay and accept whatever accolades or punishment are due. That's NOT what those of us who believe in self-defense are interested in.

It really sounds to me like the guy got shot more for demanding that the passerby "Mind his own business" rather than anything else. At least that's what the story seems to indicate to me.

 

[Article 15]

I do.

Many of these "heroes" are generally lowlives themselves. And vigilante "justice" isn't something I agree with.

Yeah better to let a woman get beaten to death.

There is no evidence that would happen, In fact the available evidence tells us in 10 prior incidents that HAD not happened.

Can you prove that the shooter was aware of the details of the ten prior incidents thus privy to your "evidence" that nobody's lives were in danger in the situation?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I do.

Many of these "heroes" are generally lowlives themselves. And vigilante "justice" isn't something I agree with.

Yeah better to let a woman get beaten to death.

There is no evidence that would happen, In fact the available evidence tells us in 10 prior incidents that HAD not happened.

So when you see a woman getting beaten you would ask the guy if he intends on killing her before you would cap him?
But hey she might deserve it right

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is not a fact.

It is a fact that in 10 prior incidents the man had never seriously harmed his girlfriend or killed her or anyone else.

It is?

You have read the details of all ten incidents or are you just talking out of your ass?

You got anything to say otherwise? Got any evidence from the story she was in danger of being killed?

Deadly Force requires certain things to happen to be justified. The cops would not be looking for the killer if it were justified from their investigation.

I find it HILARIOUS that so many leftoids suddenly support murder.

 

[Madeline]

Hitting someone is not deadly force.

Ever heard these terms, RGS? "One punch homicide"; "Beaten to death"; "Assault With Intent"?

C'mon now, I know you know better.

There is absolutely NO evidence she was in danger of death or even serious bodily harm. Once again, YOU get a clue.... you don't want the State after a lengthy trial and special death penalty procedures to kill people but you think some guy off the street has the right to murder anyone he disagrees with if they are doing something you disagree with. I got that about right?

Further we have evidence that in 10 prior fights he never seriously hurt her or killed her.

We know exactly fuck-all about the facts surrounding his 10 arrests, RGS. Not even whether the victim at the time he was shot was also the victim in all his prior assaults (which is not likely). We do not know how seriously injured she was, but again, you can kill with one punch. Drunks do so all the time.

He did not shoot the fuckwhit for disagreeing with him (one assumes). He shot him because he was beating a woman and refused to stop, and when challenged further, he moved on the shooter.

For my money, that's game, set, match on reasonable force. Opposing the death penalty does not equate to wanting to eliminate the defenses of self-defense or defense of another.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah better to let a woman get beaten to death.

There is no evidence that would happen, In fact the available evidence tells us in 10 prior incidents that HAD not happened.

So when you see a woman getting beaten you would ask the guy if he intends on killing her before you would cap him?
But hey she might deserve it right

I would intervene, I would not shoot him unless deadly force was warranted. Nothing in this story indicates it was. Or are you now saying it is perfectly ok to shoot and kill anyone winning a fight? Or just when men hit women?

 

[Article 15]

It is a fact that in 10 prior incidents the man had never seriously harmed his girlfriend or killed her or anyone else.

It is?

You have read the details of all ten incidents or are you just talking out of your ass?

You got anything to say otherwise? Got any evidence from the story she was in danger of being killed?

Deadly Force requires certain things to happen to be justified. The cops would not be looking for the killer if it were justified from their investigation.

I find it HILARIOUS that so many leftoids suddenly support murder.

Ok, so you were talking out of your ass.

Can you prove that the shooter was aware of the details of the ten prior incidents thus privy to your "evidence" that nobody's lives were in danger in the situation?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ever heard these terms, RGS? "One punch homicide"; "Beaten to death"; "Assault With Intent"?

C'mon now, I know you know better.

There is absolutely NO evidence she was in danger of death or even serious bodily harm. Once again, YOU get a clue.... you don't want the State after a lengthy trial and special death penalty procedures to kill people but you think some guy off the street has the right to murder anyone he disagrees with if they are doing something you disagree with. I got that about right?

Further we have evidence that in 10 prior fights he never seriously hurt her or killed her.

We know exactly fuck-all about the facts surrounding his 10 arrests, RGS. Not even whether the victim at the time he was shot was also the victim in all his prior assaults (which is not likely). We do not know how seriously injured she was, but again, you can kill with one punch. Drunks do so all the time.

He did not shoot the fuckwhit for disagreeing with him (one assumes). He shot him because he was beating a woman and refused to stop, and when challenged further, he moved on the shooter.

For my money, that's game, set, match on reasonable force. Opposing the death penalty does not equate to wanting to eliminate the defenses of self-defense or defense of another.

Murder is fine so long as you think so, I get it. Remind us of your opinion on the Texas incident where two men were looting a house?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no evidence that would happen, In fact the available evidence tells us in 10 prior incidents that HAD not happened.

So when you see a woman getting beaten you would ask the guy if he intends on killing her before you would cap him?
But hey she might deserve it right

I would intervene, I would not shoot him unless deadly force was warranted. Nothing in this story indicates it was. Or are you now saying it is perfectly ok to shoot and kill anyone winning a fight? Or just when men hit women?

I'd pull a gun and tell him to stop, if he didn't I'd cap him.

And if I seriously thought one man was on the verge of beating another to death I would do the same.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is?

You have read the details of all ten incidents or are you just talking out of your ass?

You got anything to say otherwise? Got any evidence from the story she was in danger of being killed?

Deadly Force requires certain things to happen to be justified. The cops would not be looking for the killer if it were justified from their investigation.

I find it HILARIOUS that so many leftoids suddenly support murder.

Ok, so you were talking out of your ass.

Can you prove that the shooter was aware of the details of the ten prior incidents thus privy to your "evidence" that nobody's lives were in danger in the situation?

The story STATES the police are looking for him. I can reasonable assume they did an investigation and found cause to believe it was not justified. Once again nice to know you think murder is fine as long as YOU think so.

 

[xsited1]

You are wrong. "Repelling deadly force" does not require that the assailant have a weapon.

Uh, no. The vigilante's life was not in danger and neither was the woman's. This guy is a murderer regardless of what you think.

Anything you want to tell us, Madeline? This story is a bit personal for you, eh?

That is not a fact.

As I mentioned in a previous post, we don't have all the information. However, what we do have is that the wife-beater said to the vigilante to 'Mind your business!' and then he was shot. That's murder.

Now what I would have done is told him to stop and, if necessary, draw my weapon and tell him to lie on the ground until the cops arrive. He probably would have run at that point, but if he had come at me I would have put him down and would have been justified to do so. But New York guns laws are so backwards, the vigilante probably would have gotten arrested for carrying a gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I fully understand. So long as the murder was for something you believe in, it is ok. But it was murder.