Yuck.No. If what you say is true (that his confrontation would be considered “verbally attacking”), the difference was that one was verbal and one was physical. We don’t get to hear what he said but, regardless, the law doesn’t equate the two and neither should we.
You are being patently dishonest about everything. You even say that the shooter was “all up in her face,” which is demonstrably not true. You certainly aren’t going to win any logical arguments approaching it that way.
Like you, I don’t believe shooting the attacker was justified, but that’s because I see the attacker moving away with no sign of intent to continue attacking. See how this works? My position is the same as yours and yet I don’t have to stretch or use hyperbole to justify my position at the expense of my credibility.
I also believe that it was his right to be armed during the confrontation, but we probably disagree there. Legally, you don’t have to give up your right to self defense in order to express your discontent. Voluntarily giving up that right in a risky confrontational situation such as this may be brave, but it doesn’t make someone who doesn’t “a coward.” It would be pointless to have that right if they were expected to voluntarily give it up in anticipation of any situation where it might be needed and, yes, a confrontation is a place where it might be needed. To imply that he has a legal duty to avoid that confrontation to prevent that possible outcome is to deny him more rights.
This shouldn’t be about whether or not he was armed when he confronted her. This shooting was clearly unjustified based on what we see between the attacker and the shooter, with the shooter having no reason to believe his life was imminently threatened. The attacker demonstrated restraint after the initial attack, was no longer attacking, and was moving away. He may not have been fleeing but the same concept applies: you don’t shoot a fleeing person unless their escape directly endangers someone’s life.
You are so god damn wrong. It is absolutely the responsibility of a gun toting fu*king moron to avoid altercations... If in fact that person wants to be a "responsible" gun owner. The Murderer could have gotten that woman's licence plate and reported her then walked away. THAT is how it should have gone down. No verbally assaulting her. No shove. No fu*king piece of shit murdering someone for fearing for his family and instinctively acting to protect them.No. If what you say is true (that his confrontation would be considered “verbally attacking”), the difference was that one was verbal and one was physical. We don’t get to hear what he said but, regardless, the law doesn’t equate the two and neither should we.
You are being patently dishonest about everything. You even say that the shooter was “all up in her face,” which is demonstrably not true. You certainly aren’t going to win any logical arguments approaching it that way.
Like you, I don’t believe shooting the attacker was justified, but that’s because I see the attacker moving away with no sign of intent to continue attacking. See how this works? My position is the same as yours and yet I don’t have to stretch or use hyperbole to justify my position at the expense of my credibility.
I also believe that it was his right to be armed during the confrontation, but we probably disagree there. Legally, you don’t have to give up your right to self defense in order to express your discontent. Voluntarily giving up that right in a risky confrontational situation such as this may be brave, but it doesn’t make someone who doesn’t “a coward.” It would be pointless to have that right if they were expected to voluntarily give it up in anticipation of any situation where it might be needed and, yes, a confrontation is a place where it might be needed. To imply that he has a legal duty to avoid that confrontation to prevent that possible outcome is to deny him more rights.
This shouldn’t be about whether or not he was armed when he confronted her. This shooting was clearly unjustified based on what we see between the attacker and the shooter, with the shooter having no reason to believe his life was imminently threatened. The attacker demonstrated restraint after the initial attack, was no longer attacking, and was moving away. He may not have been fleeing but the same concept applies: you don’t shoot a fleeing person unless their escape directly endangers someone’s life.
Poor woman was pinned in her car by a crazed gunman who was shouting obscenities and threats at her and her poor defenseless children loud enough for many other people to take notice including people in the store... The boyfriend was right to come to his family's defence and try to put distance between the shooter and his loved ones... Sadly he paid with his life.
Just imagine how many would have died had there been less witnesses...
Bullshit, the murderer was looking to use his gun. Why play "cop" (with a gun, as a civilian) otherwise.Uh, no, that wasn't coming to anyone's defense. His family wasn't being attacked, and he committed the first act of aggression. That was wrong regardless of what bullshit law the NRA got passed in Florida prior to this happening. No one has the right to just walk up to someone and attack them, and the wannabe cop very concerned with handicap access was maintaining distance from woman and only resorting to dialogue. I didn't see any threatening moves toward her that would indicate she or her kids were in danger.
If the shooter was threatening her and her children, or put his hands on anyone, well then that would definitely be a different story. But that's not what happened. Everyone screwed up there. The woman parked in a handicap spot when the parking lot was practically empty. The uptight white dude with no life and a thirst for justice wanted to play parking cop. The black guy reacted with emotion, choosing to keep it real instead of smart. Lots of fail packed into a few minutes, and now a guy is dead and a family is ripped apart because of it.
I'm no fan of the NRA, but it's almost like people carry guns because there are others out there who attack first and ask questions later, kinda like what we saw in the video. It is sad he paid with his life. He could have just stood in front of that guy, told him to fuck off in a variety of colorful ways. There would be some posturing, more insults, some hurt feelings, but then everyone probably would have gone home that day.
You are so god damn wrong. It is absolutely the responsibility of a gun toting fu*king moron to avoid altercations... If in fact that person wants to be a "responsible" gun owner. The Murderer could have gotten that woman's licence plate and reported her then walked away. THAT is how it should have gone down. No verbally assaulting her. No shove. No fu*king piece of shit murdering someone for fearing for his family and instinctively acting to protect them.
Bullshit, the murderer was looking to use his gun. Why play "cop" (with a gun, as a civilian) otherwise.
I don’t think that’s how it works. For one, it doesn’t appear that they even knew he was armed. If he threatened them with the weapon first, maybe then, but that doesn’t seem to have happened. Simply having a firearm while telling someone that they shouldn’t illegally park is not a justifiable reason to shoot him under SYG.
That said, I don’t think this shooting is defensible under SYG. It was the wrong call, seeing that the attack was discontinued before the gun was ever produced.
It's been clearly stated that the murderer was making enough of a scene that people in the parking lot noticed. For all the dead guy knew the murderer was escalating.I agree with you regarding what should have happened, as well as the responsibility of the gun carrier. A parking spot is hardly something to kill or die over. Having said that, I think you and others might be exaggerating the threat posed to the woman and kids. The term "crazed" has already been used to describe him here and I saw no such behavior from him in that video. He appears calm and collected while being a dick, so I don't really buy the 'he feared for their lives' argument. He went into macho protective boyfriend mode on a dime, without the proper cause to do so.
If you are a rational, civil adult, your MO for interacting with and influencing people shouldn't start with Step #1 - Assault the other party. Lots of people, not just in Florida, see a big problem with that. Its a premise that holds someone else's right to lose their shit outweighs my right not to receive the Jared Leto treatment from Fight Club. Guns are scary, and represent consequences that often cannot be undone. I submit that a pair of boots and fists can be scary too, that having to live with impaired vision, speech, mobility, etc for the rest of your life after being stomped nearly to death provides perfectly valid motivation for self-defense.
Not how it works. A gun owner can’t approach the situation waving his gun around to cause a conflict, but he is allowed to have a handgun while expressing himself in a way that others may disagree with. One right does not negate the other. Though what happened next was definitely unacceptable, he may have initially approached her with no desire for her to be punished and only spoke up so that she would be more self-conscious about doing it in the future.You are so god damn wrong. It is absolutely the responsibility of a gun toting fu*king moron to avoid altercations... If in fact that person wants to be a "responsible" gun owner. The Murderer could have gotten that woman's licence plate and reported her then walked away. THAT is how it should have gone down. No verbally assaulting her. No shove. No fu*king piece of shit murdering someone for fearing for his family and instinctively acting to protect them.
Is this a joke?Bullshit, the murderer was looking to use his gun. Why play "cop" (with a gun, as a civilian) otherwise.
Regardless, I prefer the foundational system that presumes innocence until proven guilty, no matter how serious. Public freedom over public safety, especially if the public is allowed to protect themselves. If “dead men tell no tales” and a killer gets away with it only to kill again, that’s the tragic price of freedom. Hopefully that kind of murderer gets shot by his next potential victim or ends up leaving a body of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Maybe in a perfect world with rational people you are correct but we don’t live in that world.
The bar is so low that if you are armed and get into a heated argument and end up shot by the other guy all he has to say is:
As soon as they find a gun on you no arrest will take place.
- I feared for my life
- I thought he was reaching for a weapon
Even if you weren’t armed we already know the legal system will preferentially give the benefit of the doubt to people who “thought they were reaching for a weapon”.
Even though it’s not the intention of SYG laws, I don’t think there’s a place for a law that in practice assigns guilt and innocence based on who’s left standing.
Instead let them be investigated on a case by case basis to see whether self defense was justified.
Doesn’t mean anything. He could have “created the scene” by being on the receiving end of her yelling and screaming.It's been clearly stated that the murderer was making enough of a scene that people in the parking lot noticed. For all the dead guy knew the murderer was escalating.
Well, escalating with physical violence didn’t accomplish that goal, did it?I think you're too easily dismissing his reaction as being solely macho. My instincts are to protect the people I love and that absolutely means get the fu*k away from them. No, I've never been violent because I do not condone violence and dead guy was wrong but not DEAD wrong. It was fu*king murderer guy who made him dead wrong.
So, you freely admit a presumptive bias. Set that aside if you want to have a rational discussion.Still, I believe with every fiber of my being that fu*k was purposely creating a situation in which to use his beloved gun.
It's been clearly stated that the murderer was making enough of a scene that people in the parking lot noticed. For all the dead guy knew the murderer was escalating.
I think you're too easily dismissing his reaction as being solely macho. My instincts are to protect the people I love and that absolutely means get the fu*k away from them. No, I've never been violent because I do not condone violence and dead guy was wrong but not DEAD wrong. It was fu*king murderer guy who made him dead wrong.
Still, I brown with every fiber of my being that fu*k was purposely creating a situation in which to use his beloved gun.
Note the missing question mark. It wasn't a question, it was a statement and not a joke. The MURDERER isn't just some guy who carries a gun. He's a fu*khead who was babysitting a parking lot in hopes of an altecation. I'll never believe anything different.Not how it works. A gun owner can’t approach the situation waving his gun around to cause a conflict, but he is allowed to have a handgun while expressing himself in a way that others may disagree with. One right does not negate the other. Though what happened next was definitely unacceptable, he may have initially approached her with no desire for her to be punished and only spoke up so that she would be more self-conscious about doing it in the future.
That’s why I speak up when I see someone throw their cigarette down. I want them to feel the social pressure, not just the legal pressure. It needs to feel stigmatized and not socially acceptable or else they might think we sympathize when law enforcement catches them littering.
Requiring someone to disarm before a potentially volatile but situation where they might be victimized just because they could avoid it is not reasonable. Sorry.
Is this a joke?
He had a it in case he needed one. He was attacked and he came very close to needing it. The circumstances still didn’t justify using it but it came close enough to easily justify having one. You are arguing against yourself by asking questions like this while ignoring the obvious answers.
Regardless, I prefer the foundational system that presumes innocence until proven guilty, no matter how serious. Public freedom over public safety, especially if the public is allowed to protect themselves. If “dead men tell no tales” and a killer gets away with it only to kill again, that’s the tragic price of freedom. Hopefully that kind of murderer gets shot by his next potential victim or ends up leaving a body of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Again, I never even wanted a gun and I do not support this gun owner’s decision to fire. It was criminal even under SYG, regardless of what the authorities initially said in this matter. The issue is not with SYG being flawed and it distracts from the real issue at hand here: a gun owner who unjustifiably killed someone and authorities who wrongly interpreted the law to justify it.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I almost always think the gun toting fu*ks are at fault. Bringing guns in to a scenario I automatically think they're dumb fu*ks... Any civilian with a gun.No, I'm just not adding anything to what I saw. You're the one pretending to know the inner motivations of those involved here, not me. I didn't see the departed do anything rational, mature or intelligent, until he backed off. He cut straight to the 'HOW DARE YOU' part and put his hands on someone without knowing any details firsthand. It wasn't solely macho, the other ingredient there was 'dumb.' Instincts are fine, except when they direct you towards counter productive outcomes. Getting yourself shot because you were dumb is no way to protect those you want to protect from harm, I think we can agree on that. It's good that you don't condone violence, now you just need to appreciate causality and accept that sometimes news is going to suck no matter how you look at it.
It's possible you're right regarding the shooter, that he has some psycho need to create conflict for the sole purpose of shooting someone. You might believe it, but you don't know it, none of us do. For the record, I hope we do find out and if that's the case this guy should be made into an example, one used to remove SYG law hopefully. I thought Paratus put it perfectly with:
"Even though it’s not the intention of SYG laws, I don’t think there’s a place for a law that in practice assigns guilt and innocence based on who’s left standing. Instead let them be investigated on a case by case basis to see whether self defense was justified."
Hear hear.
A gun in the murderers hand wasn't rational so my answer to you is No.So, you freely admit a presumptive bias. Set that aside if you want to have a rational discussion.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I almost always think the gun toting fu*ks are at fault. Bringing guns in to a scenario I automatically think they're dumb fu*ks... Any civilian with a gun.
You didn't seek the altercation. The gun wasn't on your person during the physical altercation. The whole thing may have gone differently had it been. You can't say that you know beyond a doubt that it wouldn't have.That saddens me Bubbles. I understand your anger here but I regret what I perceive as emotion clouding your judgement.
Non-related but hopefully encouraging story for you: I had a coworker in Maine who flirted with me a lot. Nothing serious at all, I learned long ago not to dip my quill in the corporate ink. She was cool though, she got my Python references and was a hard worker who didn't bullshit, so I kept her as a friend. Turns out that was not cool with her boyfriend, who I found out later was a drug dealer with a record and also one to peruse her phone. This guy sees me fueling up at a gas station one day and does all he can to start an altercation. When I dismissed him for the umpteenth time and tried to leave, he put his hands on me and attempted to drag me out of my truck window.
Let's skip the details of what happened next, suffice to say it was a 'hands on dialogue'. The important part is the 9mm Springer I had on me (well in the truck) was not involved. Everyone eventually went home. I still had to have a talk with the local cops, but that's as far as it went for me. Tell me, where did I go dumb fuck at fault there? I think we both know I'm not special, that restraint and a respect for proportional force is not something unique to me. I know of more than a dozen incidents where no shots were fired, even though they probably could have been. In a country of >360 million, I'll wager a guess and say there's been more I don't know of. Remember, it's the tragedy and scandal that makes the news. I respectfully request you paint with a thinner brush. The presence of CCW does not an automatic Florida Man make.
360 million people and more gun deaths and violence than most if not all other countries. My brush is exactly as wide as it should be.That saddens me Bubbles. I understand your anger here but I regret what I perceive as emotion clouding your judgement.
Non-related but hopefully encouraging story for you: I had a coworker in Maine who flirted with me a lot. Nothing serious at all, I learned long ago not to dip my quill in the corporate ink. She was cool though, she got my Python references and was a hard worker who didn't bullshit, so I kept her as a friend. Turns out that was not cool with her boyfriend, who I found out later was a drug dealer with a record and also one to peruse her phone. This guy sees me fueling up at a gas station one day and does all he can to start an altercation. When I dismissed him for the umpteenth time and tried to leave, he put his hands on me and attempted to drag me out of my truck window.
Let's skip the details of what happened next, suffice to say it was a 'hands on dialogue'. The important part is the 9mm Springer I had on me (well in the truck) was not involved. Everyone eventually went home. I still had to have a talk with the local cops, but that's as far as it went for me. Tell me, where did I go dumb fuck at fault there? I think we both know I'm not special, that restraint and a respect for proportional force is not something unique to me. I know of more than a dozen incidents where no shots were fired, even though they probably could have been. In a country of >360 million, I'll wager a guess and say there's been more I don't know of. Remember, it's the tragedy and scandal that makes the news. I respectfully request you paint with a thinner brush. The presence of CCW does not an automatic Florida Man make.
I'm no fan of the NRA, but it's almost like people carry guns because there are others out there who attack first and ask questions later, kinda like what we saw in the video. It is sad he paid with his life. He could have just stood in front of that guy, told him to fuck off in a variety of colorful ways. There would be some posturing, more insults, some hurt feelings, but then everyone probably would have gone home that day.
That saddens me Bubbles. I understand your anger here but I regret what I perceive as emotion clouding your judgement.
Non-related but hopefully encouraging story for you: I had a coworker in Maine who flirted with me a lot. Nothing serious at all, I learned long ago not to dip my quill in the corporate ink. She was cool though, she got my Python references and was a hard worker who didn't bullshit, so I kept her as a friend. Turns out that was not cool with her boyfriend, who I found out later was a drug dealer with a record and also one to peruse her phone. This guy sees me fueling up at a gas station one day and does all he can to start an altercation. When I dismissed him for the umpteenth time and tried to leave, he put his hands on me and attempted to drag me out of my truck window.
Let's skip the details of what happened next, suffice to say it was a 'hands on dialogue'. The important part is the 9mm Springer I had on me (well in the truck) was not involved. Everyone eventually went home. I still had to have a talk with the local cops, but that's as far as it went for me. Tell me, where did I go dumb fuck at fault there? I think we both know I'm not special, that restraint and a respect for proportional force is not something unique to me. I know of more than a dozen incidents where no shots were fired, even though they probably could have been. In a country of >360 million, I'll wager a guess and say there's been more I don't know of. Remember, it's the tragedy and scandal that makes the news. I respectfully request you paint with a thinner brush. The presence of CCW does not an automatic Florida Man make.
I'm about as pro-self defense as they come but in no way does shoving someone to the ground and then backing off merit shooting them as they are backing up.
360 million people and more gun deaths and violence than most if not all other countries. My brush is exactly as wide as it should be.
Major reading comprehension fail, wow.Non-related is the only proper way to describe this.
It's in no way related to the situation presented in the OP in any shape or form.
And yes, you did go dumb fuck at fault, you murdered an unarmed man.
You are a coward and you should OWN that.
In the future, refer to yourself as a coward because that is ALL that you are. A coward with a gun not ready to own up to his own mistakes kills a man and you expect me to pity you? To think that you are justified in your murder?
You pathetic weak little piece of shit.
Then you go on to say that you are not special and how you showed restraint and respect for proportional force?
You're a murderer whether you like it or not, there was absolutely no need for you to shoot a man for grabbing you while you were in your car.
Proportional force would have been if he actually had a weapon and according to you all he did was grab you through the window of your car.
360 million people and more gun deaths and violence than most if not all other countries. My brush is exactly as wide as it should be.