Stand your ground will protect shooter

[night_son]

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

I thought this would go to a trial but guess not

After seeing a better view of the assault I agree it was a justified shooting. Enough force was used in the initial assault to cause severe bodily injury or death. Also, looks the shooter fired at least twice.

Can you link to the better view?

No. I just watched the same video posted in the article by the OP. The one I had seen previously did not show the actual shooting.

 

[2aguy]

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

I thought this would go to a trial but guess not

After seeing a better view of the assault I agree it was a justified shooting. Enough force was used in the initial assault to cause severe bodily injury or death. Also, looks the shooter fired at least twice.

Yes he got pushed backwards and fell on his arse after he was verbally assaulting the lady in the car, so loud that patrons were alarmed, and instead of getting back up as the guy was not attacking him , he shot him, and you say twice. Manslaughter.

If the shooter had not had or drawn a firearm do you believe the assaulter would have ceased his attack?

Excellent point....

The standard is imminent death or great bodily harm.....

 

[2aguy]

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

I thought this would go to a trial but guess not

After seeing a better view of the assault I agree it was a justified shooting. Enough force was used in the initial assault to cause severe bodily injury or death. Also, looks the shooter fired at least twice.

Can you link to the better view?

No. I just watched the same video posted in the article by the OP. The one I had seen previously did not show the actual shooting.

If you go to Youtube you can get the video without the interruptions by the news anchors...I posted it a few pages back...

Here....it even zooms in on the attack...

 

[tyroneweaver]

The dead goon shouldn't have assaulted the guy.

This is known as a fatal mistake

No, it is NOT known as a fatal mistake. Thugs are used to assaulting people with no repercussions at all, that's why this guy thought he could just shove a man like that.

These kinds of assaults will continue unless more people stand their ground with a gun.

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

It wasn’t just a get out of the way push
That was a pretty violent put down

 

[2aguy]

The dead goon shouldn't have assaulted the guy.

This is known as a fatal mistake

No, it is NOT known as a fatal mistake. Thugs are used to assaulting people with no repercussions at all, that's why this guy thought he could just shove a man like that.

These kinds of assaults will continue unless more people stand their ground with a gun.

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

It wasn’t just a get out of the way push
That was a pretty violent put down

Had the victim struck his head? He may not have been clear about the attacker's aggressive actions...... In fact, had the victim struck his head, he could have been killed.

 

[Defiant1]

Why a trial? The video clearly shows the guy assaulting the shooter. The guy had every right to properly ventilate the guy.

BS, the shooter had no reason to assault the woman. He is a wimp though, big man with a gun. Men who carry guns think they are tuff and really they are wimps.

So if you yell at me my husband can knock you on your ass? You're a loon

I would never yell at your husband, I don't go around yelling at people, like the wimp did. I imagine if he didn't have a gun he would not of said anything, the gun made him a tuff wimp.

They don't call guns the great equalizers for nothing.
Clearwater is safer today with this vermin being removed.

 

[Penelope]

Jury finds Lawrence guilty

By News 10 |
Posted: Mon 5:01 PM, Jul 23, 2018 |
Updated: Tue 4:35 PM, Jul 24, 2018

LANSING, Mich. (WILX) - After deliberating most of the day, a jury has found Tracy Lawrence guilty as charged.

The Jackson County man will be sentenced on two counts of second degree murder and one count of felony firearm in the deaths of two teenagers.

Tracy Lawrence admitted to shooting and killing 18 year-old Hunter Lentz and Matthew McMillen in June of 2018 when he took the stand on Monday.

The teens were allegedly breaking into a vehicle at Lawrence's home in Springport Township.

Lawrence's Attorney says he shot them in self defense.

His sentencing date is August 29.

Second degree murder carries a potential sentence of any term of years up to life.

Prosecutor Jarzynka said, "It was a difficult and challenging case."

 

[tyroneweaver]

I'm glad he's dead.

Should have shot the girl for parking in a handicapped space.

I'm glad he's dead.

Should have shot the girl for parking in a handicapped space.

We just don't go around shooting people in the US , where do you live??

Apparently in trumpanzeeland they want that.

bodecea has entered the building

 

[Montrovant]

The dead goon shouldn't have assaulted the guy.

This is known as a fatal mistake

No, it is NOT known as a fatal mistake. Thugs are used to assaulting people with no repercussions at all, that's why this guy thought he could just shove a man like that.

These kinds of assaults will continue unless more people stand their ground with a gun.

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

I'm not arguing that the shove was anything other than assault.

The article in the OP doesn't say anything about the shooter having a history of complaining about people using handicapped spots who should not. Other articles might, but I haven't read them.

 

[Penelope]

Mi has a Stand your ground law.
What gun owners need to know about Michigan law

 

[2aguy]

The dead goon shouldn't have assaulted the guy.

This is known as a fatal mistake

No, it is NOT known as a fatal mistake. Thugs are used to assaulting people with no repercussions at all, that's why this guy thought he could just shove a man like that.

These kinds of assaults will continue unless more people stand their ground with a gun.

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

I'm not arguing that the shove was anything other than assault.

The article in the OP doesn't say anything about the shooter having a history of complaining about people using handicapped spots who should not. Other articles might, but I haven't read them.

The anti gun, democrat journalists are focusing on the background of the victim.... and they are not even looking at the attacker.

Does it seem like the attacker has a problem using physical violence...or hesitates before the attack?

 

[Montrovant]

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

I thought this would go to a trial but guess not

After seeing a better view of the assault I agree it was a justified shooting. Enough force was used in the initial assault to cause severe bodily injury or death. Also, looks the shooter fired at least twice.

Yes he got pushed backwards and fell on his arse after he was verbally assaulting the lady in the car, so loud that patrons were alarmed, and instead of getting back up as the guy was not attacking him , he shot him, and you say twice. Manslaughter.

If the shooter had not had or drawn a firearm do you believe the assaulter would have ceased his attack?

It's impossible to know. He didn't appear to be preparing for more violence, but it's entirely possible he would have done something else.

 

[Penelope]

The dead goon shouldn't have assaulted the guy.

This is known as a fatal mistake

No, it is NOT known as a fatal mistake. Thugs are used to assaulting people with no repercussions at all, that's why this guy thought he could just shove a man like that.

These kinds of assaults will continue unless more people stand their ground with a gun.

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

I'm not arguing that the shove was anything other than assault.

The article in the OP doesn't say anything about the shooter having a history of complaining about people using handicapped spots who should not. Other articles might, but I haven't read them.

I have read a few articles where they say he has a history of fighting with people in handicapped parking places. The owner called the cops on him recently.

 

[Penelope]

If this is the case, the law needs to be changed and taken on a separate base of the incidence. One size should not fit all.

 

[Montrovant]

No, it is NOT known as a fatal mistake. Thugs are used to assaulting people with no repercussions at all, that's why this guy thought he could just shove a man like that.

These kinds of assaults will continue unless more people stand their ground with a gun.

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

I'm not arguing that the shove was anything other than assault.

The article in the OP doesn't say anything about the shooter having a history of complaining about people using handicapped spots who should not. Other articles might, but I haven't read them.

The anti gun, democrat journalists are focusing on the background of the victim.... and they are not even looking at the attacker.

Does it seem like the attacker has a problem using physical violence...or hesitates before the attack?

I didn't see any hesitation, but it took a while for him to walk there from the store. Also, I have no idea what was said, so it's pretty damned hard to judge whether there was any sort of justification for the assault. If the shooter had just said something threatening to the girlfriend, who was in the car with young children, would you feel differently about the situation?

My point is that there doesn't seem to be enough information to make a solid judgement about the propriety of the shooting. I'm trying to base my opinions on the information available without assuming anything beyond that.

 

[strollingbones]

i have a problem with people using handicap spaces....i point out then ask people to move...then i hit 911...they move....and yes i take quite a cussing most of the time...i am just amazed no one points out...she could have just rolled her window up and moved the car....again a legal shot but a morally wrong one

 

[2aguy]

No, it is NOT known as a fatal mistake. Thugs are used to assaulting people with no repercussions at all, that's why this guy thought he could just shove a man like that.

These kinds of assaults will continue unless more people stand their ground with a gun.

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

I'm not arguing that the shove was anything other than assault.

The article in the OP doesn't say anything about the shooter having a history of complaining about people using handicapped spots who should not. Other articles might, but I haven't read them.

I have read a few articles where they say he has a history of fighting with people in handicapped parking places. The owner called the cops on him recently.

And that is a misleading statement....arguing with people is not "fighting" as in physical assault....which is the impression the press wants to give.

 

[strollingbones]

as for the dude doing this before..the shooter...i think you have to judge this situation on its own merits....or lets bring in all involved parties past history not just the shooter...

 

[2aguy]

This is the problem....we know nothing about the attacker... notice how we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument over a parking space? We know about the victim...because everyone wants to crucify him...but to just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard, without batting an eye shows that that guy is likely used to violence.

Did he "just walk up to a stranger, and shove them that hard" or was it instigated?

I'm not speaking in legal terms, I'm just pointing out that your description makes it sound as if the guy walked up to a random stranger for no reason and shoved him to the ground. According to the story the shooter was arguing with the wife about where the car was parked. Who knows what might have been said? Describing the man as "likely used to violence" seems to be getting a lot more out of limited information than I can see.

Also, the article gives the names of the shooter and the man who was shot. It gives their races. It gives their ages and it says that the shooting victim was a father to 3 children. It gives the name and age of the girlfriend and the ages of the 3 children. It tells us that one of the children was named after his father. The article even describes where the couple met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "we know nothing about the guy who physically assaulted a stranger over an argument." The article isn't overflowing with information, but there's some about all the main parties involved.

Do you know if the attacker has a criminal record? We have been told in story after story that the victim used to ***** about people parking in handicapped spots..

And watching the video, you see the first one to make physical contact is the attacker against the victim.... no matter what someone says in an argument, it is the guy who throws the first punch who is breaking the law....

I'm not arguing that the shove was anything other than assault.

The article in the OP doesn't say anything about the shooter having a history of complaining about people using handicapped spots who should not. Other articles might, but I haven't read them.

The anti gun, democrat journalists are focusing on the background of the victim.... and they are not even looking at the attacker.

Does it seem like the attacker has a problem using physical violence...or hesitates before the attack?

I didn't see any hesitation, but it took a while for him to walk there from the store. Also, I have no idea what was said, so it's pretty damned hard to judge whether there was any sort of justification for the assault. If the shooter had just said something threatening to the girlfriend, who was in the car with young children, would you feel differently about the situation?

My point is that there doesn't seem to be enough information to make a solid judgement about the propriety of the shooting. I'm trying to base my opinions on the information available without assuming anything beyond that.

Would I feel differently....up to the point of the physical attack...keep in mind, everyone is saying the guy who was just violently attacked and knocked to the ground should have used more sense...versus the guy who was 30-40 feet away who could have called the police instead of violently attacking the guy who hadn't done anything physical to the girlfriend.

 

[2aguy]

If this is the case, the law needs to be changed and taken on a separate base of the incidence. One size should not fit all.

One Size does not fit all.... there are levels of action taken into account before you get to the Stand Your Ground declaration..... you should do some research.