Woman-Beater Shot To Death In The Act

[Madeline]

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?

Deadly force to defend property is different from state to state, RGS. So is the "castle doctrine", aka you can shoot to kill if a stranger breaks and enters your dwelling.

I dun recall any Texas cases of late; linkiepoo?

 

[Ernie S.]

so now we are good to go with murdering someone for beating someone?

dv is a hard issue...many times with police ending up being attacked by both sides....i wonder how the woman feels about this hero?

She's still breathing. I'll bet she's grateful about that.

And yes. I'm fine with killing someone who is beating a person to death.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Deadly force to defend property is different from state to state, RGS. So is the "castle doctrine", aka you can shoot to kill if a stranger breaks and enters your dwelling.

I dun recall any Texas cases of late; linkiepoo?

Not that recent. Was last year. And you leftoids were all going ape shit that in Texas one can shoot another for theft while on your property. Even going so far as to ignore the fact a cop witnessed it and agreed it was justified.

 

[Madeline]

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

By definition, justifiable homicide is not murder, RGS.

I ♥ this debate, BTW. I'm glad someone is arguing the other side, but I didn't except that it'd be a military man.

 

[Article 15]

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.

So? He shot someone. Whether it is justified or not the police are still going to want to talk to the shooter.

I can reasonable assume they did an investigation and found cause to believe it was not justified.

No, you cannot make that assumption. It is actually more reasonable to assume that such an investigation is inconclusive at the moment and they will make the determination if it is was justified or not and whether to press charges AFTER interviewing the shooter .. if they find him.

Once again nice to know you think murder is fine as long as YOU think so.

And as usual you assume you know what I think about an issue. Have I said it was justified? No, I haven't. I said we don't know yet. You are the one assuming guilt without all of the evidence and before any charges have even been brought forward.

 

[Madeline]

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?

Deadly force to defend property is different from state to state, RGS. So is the "castle doctrine", aka you can shoot to kill if a stranger breaks and enters your dwelling.

I dun recall any Texas cases of late; linkiepoo?

Not that recent. Was last year. And you leftoids were all going ape shit that in Texas one can shoot another for theft while on your property. Even going so far as to ignore the fact a cop witnessed it and agreed it was justified.

Linkiepoodle?

 

[Madeline]

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.

Read more closely, xsited. The fuckwhit also made a move on the shooter.

 

[Madeline]

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.

The mere fact that there is a police investigation is evidence, by itself, of fuck-all. And just how thoroughly can they investigate if they dun identify and interview the shooter? Dun this whole case turn on his state of mind?

 

[manifold]

If instead of a vigilante, this guy was shot by a cop, Maddie would be calling for his badge.


True story

 

[Ernie S.]

Murder is ALWAYS acceptable if it is one of your pet peeves. How many of the people advocating this one was fine are against the death penalty?

Ya got me there, RGS. I oppose the death penalty.

However, you can use deadly force to repel deadly force in defense of yourself or another person. What would you have done? Hit the guy on the head with the gun butt?

One can not use deadly force unless one believes their life or anothers is in jeopardy. Some States allow you to use deadly force to protect property also.

Care to explain where the right to deadly force emerges in this case?

You won't let the State put to death murderers but you applaud a person murdering another simply because he was hitting his girlfriend. Care to explain that?

It's really pretty easy for a man to beat a woman to death. Had this dirtbag not been stopped, that may have been the eventual outcome. Maybe not that day, but this woman has been spared further harm.

Let's say in stead of taking a beating, the woman was being raped. How would you react then? Would you allow the rape to continue, or would you stop it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya got me there, RGS. I oppose the death penalty.

However, you can use deadly force to repel deadly force in defense of yourself or another person. What would you have done? Hit the guy on the head with the gun butt?

One can not use deadly force unless one believes their life or anothers is in jeopardy. Some States allow you to use deadly force to protect property also.

Care to explain where the right to deadly force emerges in this case?

You won't let the State put to death murderers but you applaud a person murdering another simply because he was hitting his girlfriend. Care to explain that?

It's really pretty easy for a man to beat a woman to death. Had this dirtbag not been stopped, that may have been the eventual outcome. Maybe not that day, but this woman has been spared further harm.

Let's say in stead of taking a beating, the woman was being raped. How would you react then? Would you allow the rape to continue, or would you stop it?

Rape allows the use of deadly force.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[Madeline]

If instead of a vigilante, this guy was shot by a cop, Maddie would be calling for his badge.


True story

Prove it, mani. I only support a prosecution of a law enforcement officer when there is good evidence of abuse, buster. Kindly refrain from blackening my name.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

If I pull my weapon, it's going to make a very loud noise. A gun doesn't care who it shoots and in this case I would not simply point mine and risk being disarmed. The shooter had no way of knowing how the beating would play out and it was prudent to act to prevent further harm.

 

[Madeline]

Ya got me there, RGS. I oppose the death penalty.

However, you can use deadly force to repel deadly force in defense of yourself or another person. What would you have done? Hit the guy on the head with the gun butt?

One can not use deadly force unless one believes their life or anothers is in jeopardy. Some States allow you to use deadly force to protect property also.

Care to explain where the right to deadly force emerges in this case?

You won't let the State put to death murderers but you applaud a person murdering another simply because he was hitting his girlfriend. Care to explain that?

It's really pretty easy for a man to beat a woman to death. Had this dirtbag not been stopped, that may have been the eventual outcome. Maybe not that day, but this woman has been spared further harm.

Let's say in stead of taking a beating, the woman was being raped. How would you react then? Would you allow the rape to continue, or would you stop it?

The law allows you to use deadly force to repel an attack, a rape or a homicide. You need not fear specifically that you will die...it is enough that you reasonably fear you will be severely assaulted.

True story.

 

[Madeline]

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.

If I pull my weapon, it's going to make a very loud noise. A gun doesn't care who it shoots and in this case I would not simply point mine and risk being disarmed. The shooter had no way of knowing how the beating would play out and it was prudent to act to prevent further harm.

This is the exact same advice every cop I have known has given me. If you brandish your gun, you shoot -- and shoot to kill.

"Stop! Someone call the police!" is for movies....and dead people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One can not use deadly force unless one believes their life or anothers is in jeopardy. Some States allow you to use deadly force to protect property also.

Care to explain where the right to deadly force emerges in this case?

You won't let the State put to death murderers but you applaud a person murdering another simply because he was hitting his girlfriend. Care to explain that?

It's really pretty easy for a man to beat a woman to death. Had this dirtbag not been stopped, that may have been the eventual outcome. Maybe not that day, but this woman has been spared further harm.

Let's say in stead of taking a beating, the woman was being raped. How would you react then? Would you allow the rape to continue, or would you stop it?

The law allows you to use deadly force to repel an attack, a rape or a homicide. You need not fear specifically that you will die...it is enough that you reasonably fear you will be severely assaulted.

True story.

Not necessarily true. TRUE story, in North Carolina there is no "RIGHT" to self defense. Not in law and not in the Constitution of North Carolina. In every case where a shooting occurs the DA is the sole determinate of whether the shooter will be charged.

 

[Ernie S.]

One can not use deadly force unless one believes their life or anothers is in jeopardy. Some States allow you to use deadly force to protect property also.

Care to explain where the right to deadly force emerges in this case?

You won't let the State put to death murderers but you applaud a person murdering another simply because he was hitting his girlfriend. Care to explain that?

It's really pretty easy for a man to beat a woman to death. Had this dirtbag not been stopped, that may have been the eventual outcome. Maybe not that day, but this woman has been spared further harm.

Let's say in stead of taking a beating, the woman was being raped. How would you react then? Would you allow the rape to continue, or would you stop it?

Rape allows the use of deadly force.

OK we allow deadly force to stop a rape where the victim carries little risk of death, but not in the case of a beating with greater chance the victim will die as a result of their injuries? Make little sense to me.

 

[Madeline]

It's really pretty easy for a man to beat a woman to death. Had this dirtbag not been stopped, that may have been the eventual outcome. Maybe not that day, but this woman has been spared further harm.

Let's say in stead of taking a beating, the woman was being raped. How would you react then? Would you allow the rape to continue, or would you stop it?

The law allows you to use deadly force to repel an attack, a rape or a homicide. You need not fear specifically that you will die...it is enough that you reasonably fear you will be severely assaulted.

True story.

Not necessarily true. TRUE story, in North Carolina there is no "RIGHT" to self defense. Not in law and not in the Constitution of North Carolina. In every case where a shooting occurs the DA is the sole determinate of whether the shooter will be charged.

The mere fact that there is a duty on the DA to review each shooting does not mean the state has repealed the law of self-defense, RGS. It means the law requires that a decision not to prosecute be made by the DA and not the cops.

NC has self-defense on its books, rest assured.

 

[HUGGY]

A man beating up his baby's mother in the Bronx got a fatal dose of street justice when a man intervened and shot him in the face, police sources said Thursday.

David Williams was pummeling his 19-year-old gal pal outside a Morris Ave. housing complex about 8 p.m. Wednesday, when the pistol-packing Good Samaritan stepped up.

"What are you hitting her for?" the man asked Williams, according to a source. "Why don't you stop?"

Williams, 22, got in the unidentified man's face at the Patterson Houses and forcefully told him to mind his business.

"Mind my business?" the passerby responded.

Those were among the last words Williams heard. The man then whipped out a gun and shot Williams, of Spanish Harlem, once above his left eye, cops said.

The vigilante fled after the shooting.

Williams - who had 10 domestic violence arrests involving his mother and the baby's mother - was rushed to Lincoln Hospital, where he died. Police were hunting for the shooter last night.

Detectives questioned the woman, who is the mother of Williams' 3-year-old son, at the 40th Precinct stationhouse.

Several Patterson Houses residents said the building is a magnet for crime.

"There's a lot of shootings in this development," said Eric Harris, 53, a lifelong resident. "Hopefully, it will stop."

Street justice: Bronx man allegedly beating his baby's mother fatally shot by vigilante passer-by

This story screams more to this than reported. My guess?? The shooter knew the woman. Nobody shoots someone without some kind of a motive... except psychopaths. Either the shooter was defending his friend/girlfriend or he already had a beef with the victim.