Oh and killing that guy is also considered violence... perpetrated by the "weaker" person.
Oh and killing that guy is also considered violence... perpetrated by the "weaker" person.So you are a violent bully who thinks it's acceptable to shove weaker people around when they do something you don't like.
What was the goal of the force? If the goal was to make the man shut up, then he absolutely used excessive force. He simply had no right to force the man to shut up. Any amount of "force" was excessive.
Absolutely. Why wasn't that also the rational thing to do when the young man exited the store?
I agree that the guy seems to have been unstable and constantly seeking confrontation. Regardless of the provocation, there never should have been any physical violence at all.
It certainly was, Captain O.Oh and killing that guy was also violence.
Kind of felt like you gave me no choice but to whip out my Captain O-iness on your ass.It certainly was, Captain O.
Kind of felt like you gave me no choice but to whip out my Captain O-iness on your ass.
I was kind of counting on it.There's a filthy, filthy joke in there somewhere.
Yup, same with Zimmerman, he knew he coulden't fight his way out of a paper bag but hey, when you're packing no worries, right?. Dollars for donuts neither one of these assholes would have started any *hit had they been unarmed.But because there was physical violence a gun wielding nut job/murderer gets to kill the guy who reacted emotionally and irrationally toward a potential threat to his family.
The world you believe in sucks ass.
Also, the murderer may have been physically weaker but he knew that he had the great equalizer at his hip when he harassed that woman.
Agreed.Yup, same with Zimmerman, he knew he coulden't fight his way out of a paper bag but hey, when you're packing no worries, right?. Dollars for donuts neither one of these assholes would have started any *hit had they been unarmed.
You're a scumbag and disgusting even sill...
I expect even you have people who love you. If unlawful tragedy befell you I would feel for the people who love you. I would be sad for the suffering they would endure, the heartbreak they would feel and the difficulty they would face contemplating and navigating life without you in it.
don't go around bum rushing a guy without thinking of the consequences.
Well death shouldn't have been one of the possible consequences to pushing the guy away from his family.Where is this empathy I heard you talking about?
I guess I don't feel like that family is blameless nor do I feel like the shooter shouldn't be punished. The only scum bag here is that lady for parking in a handicap space. Her BF didn't deserve to die for it, but you don't go around bum rushing a guy without thinking of the consequences.
No. He does not "get to" kill the guy without consequences or repercussion. The guy deserves jail. Even if (for some reason) he isn't ever charged, prosecuted, or convicted, the world will judge him here in the court of public opinion. He doesn't just "get to."But because there was physical violence a gun wielding nut job/murderer gets to kill the guy who reacted emotionally and irrationally toward a potential threat to his family.
The world you believe in sucks ass.
He should be free to verbally shame her, regardless of whether or not he is armed. He should not be free to shoot a man that is no longer threatening him with harm.Also, the murderer may have been physically weaker but he knew that he had the great equalizer at his hip when he harassed that woman.
I don't care one shit that someone felt compelled to call the girlfriend out for being a jerk.No. He does not "get to" kill the guy without consequences or repercussion. The guy deserves jail. Even if (for some reason) he isn't ever charged, prosecuted, or convicted, the world will judge him here in the court of public opinion. He doesn't just "get to."
I don't believe in "that world." The vitriolic hyperbole from you just doesn't end. You should be ashamed.
He should be free to verbally shame her, regardless of whether or not he is armed. He should not be free to shoot a man that is no longer threatening him with harm.
Fu*k you.Condemning the use of violence by the boyfriend does not necessarily take away from strong condemnation of the shooter. The two acts are far different in degree, but not in principle. Both are reckless and unlawful. The boyfriend could have easily inserted himself between his family and the would-be shooter in a protective stance without being the first to initiate violence. Those who excuse one unlawful act of violence while condemning the other just end up looking irrational, biased, and generally not worth heeding.
So, they must like lawsuits. Cause there will be one. Separation of Church and State.Fla. Stand your ground motto:
Don't start no shit.. Won't be no shit..
Official Fla. motto; “In God We Trust.”
Starting this week, public schools in Florida will be required to display signs with the official state motto — “In God We Trust.”
The phrase will be posted in “a conspicuous place”
https://nypost.com/2018/08/13/in-god-we-trust-signs-must-now-be-displayed-in-all-florida-schools/
I'm gratified that you aren't ignoring me anymore, but it's obvious that you revel in the emotionality of situations without taking the time to dispassionately consider what transpired. Simply put, two wrongs don't make a right, but the fact that a gun was subsequently involved seems to simply erase everything else from your mind. That's too bad.Fu*k you.
We're not talking about a single push met with a return of wild fevered punches here. The murderer had a gun. I am absolutely bias but that does not change that what you just said is bullshit.
This argument that emotions immediately disqualifies someone's argument is asinine. Emotions are all over the place. Doubt you could dodge 'em if you tried. Yes I'm emotional. I've stated several times the dead guy should not have pushed the guy. I don't condone violence. Though I have been accused several times of purposefully overlooking it in order to feel my feels.I'm gratified that you aren't ignoring me anymore, but it's obvious that you revel in the emotionality of situations without taking the time to dispassionately consider what transpired. Simply put, two wrongs don't make a right, but the fact that a gun was subsequently involved seems to simply erase everything else from your mind. That's too bad.
Just so we are clear on where I stand, I think the shooter is guilty of manslaughter at the bare minimum. He needs to go to prison.
I am not arguing that emotions immediately disqualify anyone. That would mean we'd all have to act like Mr. Spock, which is silly. It's what you DO with your emotions that matters. Recognizing when they are either leading you towards truth or away from it is an important trait.Training oneself to think rationally does not mean emotion gets abandoned, it means learning to put it in its place.This argument that emotions immediately disqualifies someone's argument is asinine. Emotions are all over the place. Doubt you could dodge 'em if you tried. Yes I'm emotional. I've stated several times the dead guy should not have pushed the guy. I don't condone violence. Though I have been accused several times of purposefully overlooking it in order to feel my feels.
Comparing similar things does not mean they are the same. For instance, a triangle a mile high is considered to be similar to a triangle an inch high, if their angles are the same. Obviously one towers over the other, but the little one is still what it is.I'm saying to you that comparing the two things (shows of violence) is stupid on a level that boggles mymind and only makes sense to those who believe it's a valid argument. So that leaves us with me bringing emotion in to it and you bringing stupid in to it. I'm gonna choose emotion every time. I hope you're not as dedicated to stupid as I am to my emotions. I'll take a leap of faith and say you're not considering you do in fact see the murderers guilt as being obvious.
A good example of emotionality possibly leading me astray. Although it's probably best not to attract negative attention, I find being ignored slightly disrespectful. So here I am, lol. Fire away.Pretty cool and strange your gratitude toward my not ignoring you... Mostly strange though.
Quoted for excessive stupidity.I don't care one shit that someone felt compelled to call the girlfriend out for being a jerk.
The murderer did it while armed. The fu*ker fully intended to use it. No, he didn't have a right to pick fights while armed because armed civilians can not be trusted. ... Wait, I do trust that they're stupid volatile mother fu*kers. He should have reported her NOT approached her. He was spoiling for a fight, in this case with a woman. I have no doubt that if she got out of the car as he berated her he would have shot her. He wanted to kill someone.
Stop defending his "rights". In doing so you are absolutely defending his right to kill that man.
No, I'm not ashamed. I'm right. Y'all gun fucks are stupid as shit.
LOL! I'm truly not sorry to disappoint. And neither do I care what you think.Quoted for excessive stupidity.
I repeat: You should be ashamed of your vitriolic hyperbole.
I'd call the mile high triangle a big ass triangle. I call the murder disproportionate, "emotional", EXTRA criminal, cowardly, Big Ass violence.I am not arguing that emotions immediately disqualify anyone. That would mean we'd all have to act like Mr. Spock, which is silly. It's what you DO with your emotions that matters. Recognizing when they are either leading you towards truth or away from it is an important trait.Training oneself to think rationally does not mean emotion gets abandoned, it means learning to put it in its place.
Comparing similar things does not mean they are the same. For instance, a triangle a mile high is considered to be similar to a triangle an inch high, if their angles are the same. Obviously one towers over the other, but the little one is still what it is.
Also, the timeline or sequence of events has meaning in the context of this event. If the gun came out before the shove occurred, the shove (and much more) may have been completely justified and legal. But that's not what happened. The shove occurred first, it was "first blood" if you will. That DOES NOT justify lethal force, but neither does the shooting absolve the the deceased of the fact that he struck first- a fairly clear-cut assault.
A good example of emotionality possibly leading me astray. Although it's probably best not to attract negative attention, I find being ignored slightly disrespectful. So here I am, lol. Fire away.
Not good!...I'll take you off ignore then... Until you annoy me so thoroughly I gotsta do it again. What's the odds you think?
Fu*king idiot.Why did the guy even assault him, just get in the car and drive away and it ends well, attack the guy and risk use of deadly force. It's a no brainer for most people.