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.
Yup but we know what the real motivation here. If it was reversed and the Black guy was harrasing a White woman and kids for parking in a handicap spot and then shot the husband everyone in here would be screaming DEATH PENALTY! He would not be home free either...he’d be in jail while the sheriff “looked through all the facts”.
Just like in the US. 75% of gun violence here, about the difference between us and say Canada is gangs and drugs....and urban.
Yet the blame is constantly laid on the states or PARTS of states that have more "canada like" gun violence levels.
IMO this is one of the biggest political frauds for the last 50 years.
Major cities, rather than addressing poverty, racism, unequal opportunity....just blame guns. On top of that, they blame states like Montana or the rural parts of Illinois etc. for the socio-economic environments they've created on their own.
Heads up because Lincoln Park (Chicago) and Austin( Chicago) are both neighborhoods about 3 miles apart.
The former has 1 murder per 100k residents a year...the latter over 30. Same laws. Same Cops. Well GEE it must be Indianas fault due to their gun laws says the politicians!
I've made this argument before on this forum. Please, if you haven't sat down and thought about it before at least consider the points I've made. Thank you for your time.
I think we are on the same page. Mexico has much stricter guns laws than the USA or the Philippines. Yet you can still get a gun there. And crime numbers for all 3 are similar. So the bad hombres get them and most most law abiding citizens do not. The laws do not change things. That was my point. We do not need more gun laws.
Come on, this has nothing to do with punks bullying people in your high school. The guy in the video did not bully the shooter. He simply got mad at a guy he saw yelling at his girlfriend. For something like to result in a killing which is legally justified is insane.
If you watch the video the guy has a rep for starting trouble with people. That being said the other guy was trying to be macho for his girlfriend and slammed him.
But the old adage fits here. Don't bring a stick to a gunfight.
Regarding disabled spaces. It is a peeve of mine when able bodied people park in those spaces. My mom is 87 and to have to walk farther away because someone else is lazy is not right. People need to respect the laws.
With the video we need to see the whole thing. Did the guy that pushed him walk back towards the gunman or walk away? If he walks towards the other guy shooting him is fine in my book.
Sounds like we're in agreement? I posted earlier that I was against the shooting and if he was concerned with his safety, pulling the gun out would have been good enough. To me, it looked like the guy did start walking toward him after knocking him down, but backed away when the guy started reaching for something.
My problem with this discussion is that people are blaming a guy for meddling, and while I hate guys like that, it doesn't warrant being pushed on the ground. That's my point. You don't get to knock someone down just because he's a pita busybody.
I agree in principle, as you picked up on.
However I have to qualify that I am on both sides of the issue, including defending the guy who might be a "pita".
I empathize because I am one of those guys myself.
No, I am not a Dudley Do Right, and generally ignore many minor violations of the law as not being any of my business.
However when it comes to people abusing Handicapped parking, I am probably more like this guy than most. I have gotten into confrontations with several punks (once including a woman) who have decided they are too important to obey the law and be considerate of those less fortunate.
Heck one time I was berating a women at a TrS for using a space, and a guy like me came to her defense. They didn't like a guy verbally berating a woman, and we almost got into it because he was doing what I'd typically do, if a guy was perceptually intimidating a woman.
Needless to say I was not implying a physical threat toward her, but this guy took offense on her behalf. Thus I was in a no win situation, despite the woman being the one who was in the wrong.
But I digress.
Many times with video watched in safety from the luxury of our homes, you have no idea what was running through the guys mind, who had been blindsided/attacked. He found himself on the ground with the guy who was just a few feet away, and may have perceived the guy as a threat to his safety.
Still, I'd like to think my instinct to only use deadly force would only kick in during a life or death situation. We both do not see it that way, but we also were not aggressively/violently slammed to the ground.
In this day and age you don't know what will happen just confronting, let alone committing an assault.
Best to fight words with words.....
Once it gets physical the gloves come off.
Some are raised to be passive and will coward.
Some are taught to confront violence, with as much violence as they can possibly wield. People are armed in the USA.
Pick your battles wisely and think if it is a good day to die, before you lose all self control and lay hands on another.
Yup but we know what the real motivation here. If it was reversed and the Black guy was harrasing a White woman and kids for parking in a handicap spot and then shot the husband everyone in here would be screaming DEATH PENALTY! He would not be home free either...he’d be in jail while the sheriff “looked through all the facts”.
Bravo newbie.
We went 13+ pages into this story without raising a racial component (props to the media as well for not injecting race).
This could have easily happened regardless of race, and apparently even the generally liberal media did not attempt to inject race, where no racial animus was evident.
So while I could type a post that placated your view (outside of injecting race), I find myself unwilling to agree because you are attempting to add things not in evidence.
We went 13+ pages into this story without raising a racial component (props to the media as well for not injecting race).
This could have easily happened regardless of race, and apparently even the generally liberal media did not attempt to inject race, where no racial animus was evident.
So while I could type a post that placated your view (outside of injecting race), I find myself unwilling to agree because you are attempting to add things not in evidence.
`
I’m actually not a newbie...been here about 7 years but forgot my password and dont have access to the email I signed up with. Anyways:
“Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings. In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.
You can see the breakdown of the killings in the chart below. The figures represent the percentage likelihood that the deaths will be found justifiable compared to white-on-white killings, which was the baseline Roman used for comparison:”
So basically stand your ground laws are a get out of jail free card for Whites killing Blacks but we don’t see the same happening in situations where the assailant is Black and the victim is White. This even applies to when the death penalty...
I agree in principle, as you picked up on.
However I have to qualify that I am on both sides of the issue, including defending the guy who might be a "pita".
Principles and virtues aside. 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Read again.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
That's the law.
Whether you agree with it. Disagree with it. Question the morality or the virtue/principle of it is irrelevant.
It does not pay to be violent down here. At all.
If I were to argue with anyone and things escalated. If I put hands on them, shove them to the ground, whatever, and they shoot me dead. That's my fault for putting fear of death in them. That's my fault for being physically aggressive or threatening their life.
Who gets to say what a genuine threat against life is? You.
You get to make that judgement call. Not the state. Not the feds. You. The person that is a victim of violence.
If it's questionable, it will go to trial. Like "Florida Man arrested today for declaring stand your ground, when someone broke into his meth lab to steal his meth."
"Florida Man arrested today for declaring stand your ground, when some neighborhood kids refused to get off the man's lawn."
So on so forth.
I'm just reporting what the law is here and how it works.
I agree in principle, as you picked up on.
However I have to qualify that I am on both sides of the issue, including defending the guy who might be a "pita".
I empathize because I am one of those guys myself.
No, I am not a Dudley Do Right, and generally ignore many minor violations of the law as not being any of my business.
However when it comes to people abusing Handicapped parking, I am probably more like this guy than most. I have gotten into confrontations with several punks (once including a woman) who have decided they are too important to obey the law and be considerate of those less fortunate.
Heck one time I was berating a women at a TrS for using a space, and a guy like me came to her defense. They didn't like a guy verbally berating a woman, and we almost got into it because he was doing what I'd typically do, if a guy was perceptually intimidating a woman.
Needless to say I was not implying a physical threat toward her, but this guy took offense on her behalf. Thus I was in a no win situation, despite the woman being the one who was in the wrong.
But I digress.
Many times with video watched in safety from the luxury of our homes, you have no idea what was running through the guys mind, who had been blindsided/attacked. He found himself on the ground with the guy who was just a few feet away, and may have perceived the guy as a threat to his safety.
Still, I'd like to think my instinct to only use deadly force would only kick in during a life or death situation. We both do not see it that way, but we also were not aggressively/violently slammed to the ground.
`
I get where you're coming from on the first point. I'm calling him a pita because that's the way people are describing him in the thread as they try and justify why this happened. While I'm not fond of people who get into everybody's business, and that's the way it sounds in the article, that's no excuse to get physical with him, as far as I'm concerned.
You're right, I have no idea what was going through his mind, but shouldn't training give people a better handle on how to read the situation? The idiot started stepping back as soon as he saw the guy on the ground reaching for something. I think he knew what was coming at that point. It all could have ended there.
But as you say, it's all Monday morning quarterbacking on my part.
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.
