Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've watched this video more than once. Before he retreats, the assaulter steps toward him again and the guy who went into the store to alert the assaulter, comes out of the store and is heading toward them. Now he's on the ground in a position of great disadvantage with two...possibly three people who are going to do God knows what. That's all he knows.
The whole thing was a mess. She shouldn't have parked where she did and when he approached her she should have moved. He should have said his piece and moved on. The drivers boyfriend shouldn't have pushed him.
Bad behavior all the way around.
Great... he's free to assume the worst about the people he's threatened by, and doesn't need to wait for any further escalation beyond the push to defend himself.
The guy whose his wife is being harassed by a random person on the street needs to wait for the random guy to hit her before he can defend his wife, by pushing the guy away?
Why do you allow one guy to react out of fear of what might happen, but not the other guy?
Great... he's free to assume the worst about the people he's threatened by, and doesn't need to wait for any further escalation beyond the push to defend himself.
The guy whose his wife is being harassed by a random person on the street needs to wait for the random guy to hit her before he can defend his wife?
Why do you allow one guy to react out of fear of what might happen, but not the other guy?
You should have read through the thread while it was active because everything you've been asking has been discussed. But it's a bit much to read through at this point with more than 2,300 posts.
When someone assaults you - you're going to assume the worst. Don't be silly by suggesting otherwise. You know better than that. The push is an assault. When McGlockton started advancing toward him again, that's when it became a bigger threat and he pulled his gun out.
All he had to do was to exit the store and yell, "HEY! What the hell do you think you're doing?" That would have been enough. Instead, with no indication there was any threat at all, he went and pushed him.
Here's the flaw with your argument. You want us to believe that seeing the guy talking or yelling at his girlfriend was a threat - but sitting on the ground after being pushed and seeing the guy who assaulted you coming at you again with a second guy about to join him, isn't a threat.
That's beyond ridiculous.
Last edited by MPowering1; 09-26-2018 at 07:33 AM..
You should have read through the thread while it was active because everything you've been asking has been discussed. But it's a bit much to read through at this point with more than 2,700 posts.
When someone assaults you - you're going to assume the worst. Don't be silly by suggesting otherwise. You know better than that. The push is an assault. When McGlockton started advancing toward him again, that's when it became a bigger threat and he pulled his gun out.
All he had to do was to exit the store and yell, "HEY! What the hell do you think you're doing?" That would have been enough. Instead, with no indication there was any threat at all, he went and pushed him.
Here's the flaw with your argument. You want us to believe that seeing the guy talking or yelling at his girlfriend was a threat - but sitting on the ground after being pushed and seeing the guy who assaulted you coming at you again with a second guy about to join him, isn't a threat.
That's beyond ridiculous.
I never said that. Re-read what I wrote. I pointed out the irony of claiming one person's actions were okay and the other person's weren't even though both were responding to a perceived threat. You should either defend both or neither, not pick one over the other.
And the point I'm making is still there. You defend one guy by listing potential outcomes and condemn the other by dismissing potential outcomes. Both were responding to what they saw as threats. Are there no potential outcomes to someone harassing a stranger in the streets that you consider dangerous?
You say the one guy should have done something to diffuse the situation instead of acting, but not the other guy?
You should have read through the thread while it was active because everything you've been asking has been discussed. But it's a bit much to read through at this point with more than 2,300 posts.
When someone assaults you - you're going to assume the worst. Don't be silly by suggesting otherwise. You know better than that. The push is an assault. When McGlockton started advancing toward him again, that's when it became a bigger threat and he pulled his gun out.
All he had to do was to exit the store and yell, "HEY! What the hell do you think you're doing?" That would have been enough. Instead, with no indication there was any threat at all, he went and pushed him.
Here's the flaw with your argument. You want us to believe that seeing the guy talking or yelling at his girlfriend was a threat - but sitting on the ground after being pushed and seeing the guy who assaulted you coming at you again with a second guy about to join him, isn't a threat.
That's beyond ridiculous.
We must have seen different videos. I never saw the victim taking a step toward the perp, I saw the opposite. He was backing away when he was shot.
The guy with the gun has a history of going around armed, looking for a fight. He finally found one. Now he will deal with the consequences of that, which I hope is prison for a good, long stretch for murder. Because that's what this was.
I never said that. Re-read what I wrote. I pointed out the irony of claiming one person's actions were okay and the other person's weren't even though both were responding to a perceived threat. You should either defend both or neither, not pick one over the other.
And the point I'm making is still there. You defend one guy by listing potential outcomes and condemn the other by dismissing potential outcomes. Both were responding to what they saw as threats. Are there no potential outcomes to someone harassing a stranger in the streets that you consider dangerous?
You say the one guy should have done something to diffuse the situation instead of acting, but not the other guy?
YOU just posted mocking the guy for assuming the worst but that's what you think the guy leaving the store had the right to do. You're all over the place with this.
When he left the store, the shooter was far enough away from the car that when she opened her door and got out there was still a good foot between them. What threat? There was no threat justifying an assault.
As for the bolded, I already posted there was bad behavior on the part of all of them and that the shooter should have said his piece to the driver and moved on.
Once on the ground, however, with two people advancing, what choice did he have?
We must have seen different videos. I never saw the victim taking a step toward the perp, I saw the opposite. He was backing away when he was shot.
The guy with the gun has a history of going around armed, looking for a fight. He finally found one. Now he will deal with the consequences of that, which I hope is prison for a good, long stretch for murder. Because that's what this was.
He advanced before he retreated and he only retreated once he saw the gun.
And you're one of about two or three people who deny that in this thread if you read through it. Everyone else saw it.
I never said that. Re-read what I wrote. I pointed out the irony of claiming one person's actions were okay and the other person's weren't even though both were responding to a perceived threat. You should either defend both or neither, not pick one over the other.
And the point I'm making is still there. You defend one guy by listing potential outcomes and condemn the other by dismissing potential outcomes. Both were responding to what they saw as threats. Are there no potential outcomes to someone harassing a stranger in the streets that you consider dangerous?
You say the one guy should have done something to diffuse the situation instead of acting, but not the other guy?
Eddie, your perseverance is admirable, but you'll be worn out long before you find the sensibility you seek. Using the ignore list is a lot easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
We must have seen different videos. I never saw the victim taking a step toward the perp, I saw the opposite. He was backing away when he was shot.
The guy with the gun has a history of going around armed, looking for a fight. He finally found one. Now he will deal with the consequences of that, which I hope is prison for a good, long stretch for murder. Because that's what this was.
Yep....there's no debate here. I think we can safely assume that other video will be tossed as inadmissible.
We must have seen different videos. I never saw the victim taking a step toward the perp, I saw the opposite. He was backing away when he was shot.
The guy with the gun has a history of going around armed, looking for a fight. He finally found one. Now he will deal with the consequences of that, which I hope is prison for a good, long stretch for murder. Because that's what this was.
That's what I saw too. And I watched the video several times.
YOU just posted mocking the guy for assuming the worst but that's what you think the guy leaving the store had the right to do. You're all over the place with this.
When he left the store, the shooter was far enough away from the car that when she opened her door and got out there was still a good foot between them. What threat? There was no threat justifying an assault.
As for the bolded, I already posted there was bad behavior on the part of all of them and that the shooter should have said his piece to the driver and moved on.
Once on the ground, however, with two people advancing, what choice did he have?
I never mocked anyone. I pointed to YOU defending the guy for his thinking while not giving the same benefit to the other guy. You keep putting both men, who are reacting the same way to a perceived threat, under different rules.
You condemn the one guy for ignoring signs that there was no threat, but defend the other guy for ignoring signs that there was no threat.
You condemn one guy for defensive actions but defend the other guy for his defensive actions.
You say one guy should have mitigated the situation before he acted, but don't require that same restraint from the other guy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
