Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[beagle9]

What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.

Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's Beyond These Horizons, wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.

I think I'll start doing that.

If she would have reached for a weapon out of fear, and he saw this, what do you think he would have done ??

 

[Vastator]

[ The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back. Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted. That's murder one

Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.

But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.

These types are probably best avoided...…...

You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.

The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot. How is that possibly unclear to you?

Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?

Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot. Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.

We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored. It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation. Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.

I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.

 

[kaz]

You said I don't know what the guy was thinking. Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking

How can the store owner possibly know what was said?

He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.

That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.

A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her. It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation. There is clear unequal force on the two sides

Oh bullshit!

So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.

As you so eloquently put it, oh bullshit

 

[OODA_Loop]

Reinforces for me how ineffective handgun rounds can be to stop an attack.

He could have closed and attacked further after taking a round COM

 

[Lewdog]

They aren't going to watch the video because they've already made up their minds. A white guy shot a black guy simply because he got pushed on his ass.

So they don't have the same sympathy for the Black guy, and secondly they don't want to admit that a gun owner that was carrying in public lost his cool and murdered someone in broad daylight. That undermines their stance on gun control laws.

That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race. I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence. George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.

I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over. You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy. Those are entirely different.

Every situation isn't about race. Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer

I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real. We continue to see it happen everyday. I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon. I mean ******* seriously? Over a coupon? Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game. Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm. This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.

What is real?

That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.

So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon? It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut. A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.

The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do. If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame. Facts aren't racist.

However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation. It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder

No... you didn't see it? A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it. She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did. He literally called the cops on her because of a coupon. He is on video too. He got fired.

There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think. And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation. Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?

 

[OODA_Loop]

So you would be unconcerned if a man started yelling at your wife in a parking lot.

Would not go hands on or lethal for just words.

 

[kaz]

Yes, you are getting the same answer to the same question every time. My answer is clear, stop ignoring my answer and address it and we could move on. You don't have to agree with my answer. If that's the case, say why, don't ignore it. But if you continue to ignore my answer and repeat the same question, you will continue to get the same answer.

Funny how that works, huh?

Again...you cant possibly know what words were exchanged between the two.

Go to the one minute mark of the video

Yes, you mentioned that. You parroting the same point is not parroting. Me giving you the same answer to the same point is parroting. We've covered this ground, my friend

In your mind maybe.

Beagle already explained my point to you. But you don't even know what my answer means? I find that impossible to believe.

So again, I'll walk you through this since you claim it keeps going over your head.

What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one minute mark of the video? What happens then?

Once you know that, I'll walk you through what it means to your question

 

[Circe]

What is real?

I love questions like this.

What's real is whatever we each think is real. We live in private reality bubbles. We decide what is real in concurrence with our general ideas about the world. We can change our reality with data ---- if we believe the data. Right now, not enough good data. Could be awhile, too.

 

[Lewdog]

Are you dumb? The law has like 10 stipulations that must be met in order for it to apply, and those stipulations have to be decided by the prosecutor and then he decides whether there is a criminal case or not. It's not ******* changing the law. Good grief.

The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
You said no one understood the law ...
And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.

If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
Means you have a better understand of the law ...
Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...

You are stupid ...
Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.

.​

The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not. He is not saying what the guy did was legal. He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.

Holy shit. This isn't that complicated. Stupid? My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it. The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.

The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.

No. He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide. Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.

"Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."

You aren't saying the whole quote. You guys really love to cherrypick don't you? Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion? It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.

 

[kaz]

Yeah...………….not your last point, that it's Murder One: it isn't because he didn't specifically plan that specific murder. The most it is, is manslaughter, IMO.

But I think you make a good point that needed making: this guy WAS a loaded gun. He wanted very badly to kill someone, and yeah, he just kept on and on till he got what he wanted.

These types are probably best avoided...…...

You have no way of knowing what a complete stranger wants. You should quit believing you do. That's how mistakes are made.

The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot. How is that possibly unclear to you?

Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?

Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot. Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.

We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored. It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation. Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.

I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.

You don't know what the victims family had to do with the shooting? OMG, that's priceless

 

[kaz]

That the shooter was white and the victim black doesn't establish that their motivation is race. I get tired of that being the Democrat explanation of every situation without evidence. George Zimmerman just had a white name and that was enough for you.

I say what the shooter was thinking because he had a pattern of pit bulling the parking spot and initiating aggression and repeating that scenario over and over. You're saying what they think based on one case of a white guy shooting a black guy. Those are entirely different.

Every situation isn't about race. Though Circe was massively lame by asking if they were white or black then having a meltdown when she got the factual answer

I know you don't want to hear it, but there has been so many social experiments done on it, it's real. We continue to see it happen everyday. I mean the guy the other day called the cops on a woman because he wouldn't accept her coupon. I mean ******* seriously? Over a coupon? Another guy called the cops over a foul in a pickup basketball game. Someone called the cops on a black female student for sleeping on the couch in the common area of her dorm. This type of shit just doesn't happen the other way around.

What is real?

That a lot of these situations the white people that call the cops or react like this shooter did, only do so because the person they are interacting with are Black instead of white.

So you're saying a white guy called the cops on a black woman because she wouldn't accept his coupon? It doesn't sound like he's a racist, it sounds like he's a nut. A list of anecdotal stories doesn't prove anything.

The facts are that blacks murder people at a far higher rate than whites do. If you're arguing that whites are racists if they know that, that's just lame. Facts aren't racist.

However, you cannot apply that to killing someone who is not a threat to you or as in this case actually staging a confrontation. It doesn't matter if you or the victim is white or black, it's murder

No... you didn't see it? A white manager at CVS called the cops on a Black woman because she had a coupon that said CVS on it, and he thought it was fake and wouldn't take it. She asked for a customer service number, and instead he started threatening to call the cops on her, and then she told him to go ahead... and he did. He literally called the cops on her because of a coupon. He is on video too. He got fired.

There is a WHOLE LOT more to murder rates than you think. And these issues where cops are being called by white people on Blacks is nothing even remotely close to a murder situation. Do you think the white girl in the college dorm thought she was going to be murdered by the Black girl sleeping on the couch in the common room of the dorm?

I'm not even clear what you're arguing. Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?

And again, anecdotal arguments mean nothing

 

[Circe]

What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one minute mark of the video? What happens then?

You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.

 

[beagle9]

This cat if proven to be a stalker for a kill, is the poster boy for not issuing permits for concealed carry to just anyone in society without the proper vetting of the applicant through checking out his friends and family members for character and mental stability issues going back say 10 years or more maybe.

or he could have had a FL permit for decades and until someone attacked him never had an issue.

Otherwise there should be an anual reassessment of ones background to ensure the mental stability of the permit holder or is that the case already ? If it is the case I wonder if this cat somehow fell through a crack if his mental was deteriorating.

 

[Vastator]

Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?

Strawman

Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?

Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone." Screaming at someone isn't "tone." Tone is the impression you're giving. Screaming at someone is entirely different. You used a word to create a false narrative. That is a strawman

Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.

But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.

I pointed out that you're massively contradictory. The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots

"By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.

 

[kaz]

What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one minute mark of the video? What happens then?

You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.

Go to the one minute mark of the video and tell me what happens

 

[Circe]

I'm not even clear what you're arguing. Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?

Yeah...…..we may be premature considering race at all in this thread. I'm not usually pious about that, but there is just too much going on in this situation.

 

[kaz]

Strawman

Wrong again. That's a direct portrayal of what happened in the video. Its precisely relevant, and speaks directly to your comment. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is...?

Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone." Screaming at someone isn't "tone." Tone is the impression you're giving. Screaming at someone is entirely different. You used a word to create a false narrative. That is a strawman

Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.

But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.

I pointed out that you're massively contradictory. The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots

"By a guy protecting his woman"... This quote of yours is all fail. Firstly, he wasn't "protecting" his woman. She wasn't being assaulted. Secondly the victim doesnt appear to see the approach of the assailant, much less know his relationship to the woman, nor his reason to begin the assault. Leave the feelings out of it, and the waters begin to clear.

On the other hand, while you hold the victim to this massive standard, the shooter who initiated the whole thing capping a guy who shoved him for threatening his woman and backing off is just fine.

Your standards are massively double

 

[kaz]

I'm not even clear what you're arguing. Are you arguing that white people want to shoot black people while black people actually shoot more white people than whites shoot blacks?

Yeah...…..we may be premature considering race at all in this thread. I'm not usually pious about that, but there is just too much going on in this situation.

I don't see what race has to do with it at all

 

[Vastator]

I watched it many times now. Do you have a point?

You said I don't know what the guy was thinking. Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking

How can the store owner possibly know what was said?

He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.

That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.

A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her. It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation. There is clear unequal force on the two sides

That is categorically false.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Otherwise there should be an annual reassessment of ones background to ensure the mental stability of the permit holder or is that the case already ? If it is the case I wonder if this cat somehow fell through a crack if his mental was deteriorating.

Nothing of the sort disclosed. But don't let that stop you from casting from your hypotheticals.