SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 13,914
- 6,505
- 365
If it was an unjustified killing depends on which way you view the situation.
In short. If you say the man with the AK was exercising his legitimate Second Amendment Rights and his First Amendment Right to protest and assemble then the killing was criminal. The car drove into the protesters who were peaceably assembling and the man with the rifle moved to protect the his handicapped girlfriend. The shooter had bragged you could shoot someone legally and because he had a history of violence. He was once arrested for domestic abuse, he should fry for the killing.
Now. As I have mentioned before. In some if not most disagreements both sides are telling truth. So this while opposed by the Right is a valid point of view.
The other side also contains truth.
The driver realizing he had driven into a mob saw an apparent threat. His previous mental exercises. That is what it is called when you imagine a situation and how you would deal with it. A mental exercise. His previous exercises had made the decision if there was a weapon in evidence and a perceived threat that the use of lethal force would be justified.
He saw a man with an AK acting in a hostile manner. He made the decision to defend himself. He used a weapon to do so.
The truth appears to be there were no really bad guys. No gang bangers. No hoodlums rampaging through the streets raping and pillaging.
Both sides were obeying the law. Both sides were in the right. Both sides were acting as has been described as a reasonable man would act. Defending himself. Defending his family.
Was the action criminal? Possibly. It depends on the exact wording of the Texas Statutes and the precedents that define the statute.
But my initial read, and this is after bare minutes spent in contemplation without knowing the laws of Texas or precedents or all the information.
My initial read is that both were right. And both were wrong. It is one of my personal beliefs that open carry is dumb. It makes you a target for hostilities and marks you as the biggest threat in case violence does occur. Better to be camouflaged as a regular person than identifiable as a threat that needs to be attacked early.
Because legally you are left with reacting to hostility instead of initiating the incident and “getting the drop on” the potential baddie.
Worse in a crowded situation like that there is the risk of a daisy chain shooting.
Dickhead 1 shoots dickhead two. Dickhead three sees two commit a shooting he believes is unjustified. Dickhead three shoots two. Four shows up just as three is killing a guy right in front of him. Dickhead four shoots three believing he is stopping a mass shooting.
And everyone involved believes they are doing the right thing. No bad guys. Just different points of view.
Wasn’t it about a week ago cops shot a hero citizen who ran to the sound of guns killing the guy who had killed the cop? The trained cop responding saw a situation and acted according to that training and killed the man before he could murder again.
The only real bad guy was already dead.
Option B.
In short. If you say the man with the AK was exercising his legitimate Second Amendment Rights and his First Amendment Right to protest and assemble then the killing was criminal. The car drove into the protesters who were peaceably assembling and the man with the rifle moved to protect the his handicapped girlfriend. The shooter had bragged you could shoot someone legally and because he had a history of violence. He was once arrested for domestic abuse, he should fry for the killing.
Now. As I have mentioned before. In some if not most disagreements both sides are telling truth. So this while opposed by the Right is a valid point of view.
The other side also contains truth.
The driver realizing he had driven into a mob saw an apparent threat. His previous mental exercises. That is what it is called when you imagine a situation and how you would deal with it. A mental exercise. His previous exercises had made the decision if there was a weapon in evidence and a perceived threat that the use of lethal force would be justified.
He saw a man with an AK acting in a hostile manner. He made the decision to defend himself. He used a weapon to do so.
The truth appears to be there were no really bad guys. No gang bangers. No hoodlums rampaging through the streets raping and pillaging.
Both sides were obeying the law. Both sides were in the right. Both sides were acting as has been described as a reasonable man would act. Defending himself. Defending his family.
Was the action criminal? Possibly. It depends on the exact wording of the Texas Statutes and the precedents that define the statute.
But my initial read, and this is after bare minutes spent in contemplation without knowing the laws of Texas or precedents or all the information.
My initial read is that both were right. And both were wrong. It is one of my personal beliefs that open carry is dumb. It makes you a target for hostilities and marks you as the biggest threat in case violence does occur. Better to be camouflaged as a regular person than identifiable as a threat that needs to be attacked early.
Because legally you are left with reacting to hostility instead of initiating the incident and “getting the drop on” the potential baddie.
Worse in a crowded situation like that there is the risk of a daisy chain shooting.
Dickhead 1 shoots dickhead two. Dickhead three sees two commit a shooting he believes is unjustified. Dickhead three shoots two. Four shows up just as three is killing a guy right in front of him. Dickhead four shoots three believing he is stopping a mass shooting.
And everyone involved believes they are doing the right thing. No bad guys. Just different points of view.
Wasn’t it about a week ago cops shot a hero citizen who ran to the sound of guns killing the guy who had killed the cop? The trained cop responding saw a situation and acted according to that training and killed the man before he could murder again.
The only real bad guy was already dead.
Option B.
