Someone looking for a confrontation. That's who.What kind of a man engages a woman with a small child aggressively regardless of other factors? Good grief. How was she a threat to him in any way?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone looking for a confrontation. That's who.What kind of a man engages a woman with a small child aggressively regardless of other factors? Good grief. How was she a threat to him in any way?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because perception is reality, in a manner of speaking.I didn't even watch the video or know the races of the parties involved and came to the conclusion the guy claiming SYG shouldn't be able to and should be prosecuted. I'm not sure what race has to do with this. Is there something in the link that leads you to believe the reason the shooter was granted SYG status was because he was white and the guy he shot was black? I'm trying to find the reason to bring race into this particular discussion.
Gotcha, you're speaking to a broader issue.Because perception is reality, in a manner of speaking.
I am challenging the knee-jerk reaction some may have to the situation when they do see the races of the people involved.
Many black men are not able to carry due to our criminal justice system. This occurs more often in this group, often for nonviolent possession convictions. This leaves many without the ability to carry legally. Thus, they are at a "disadvantage" in the wild west. Also, a black man with a gun may be perceived differently.
As much as we wish race didn't matter in a case like this, it does.
are you being serious now?Poor decision making by his father - just like his mother. Both had a responsibility to their children to diffuse the situation.
She could have moved her car (or not parked illegally in the first place ideally) and he could have been more civil when he approached the shooter.
Not absolving the shooter of anything but when you are a parent and you have your children with you - you have to put their safety and comfort first.
Statistically, the black man is less likely to be legally armed.Gotcha, you're speaking to a broader issue.
this is one of the reasons i favor much stricter laws for folks who want to carry weapons around in public.Someone looking for a confrontation. That's who.
Black people have a duty to retreat. White people can be as aggressive as they wish and act with impunity. Not sure if blue font is needed.are you being serious now?
you are doing nothing but trying to absolve the shooter.
black people have a duty to not be inherently threatening. and they should probably enter all interactions with white folks with appropriate deference to avoid these types of situations.Black people have a duty to retreat. White people can be aggressive as they wish and act with impunity. Not sure if blue font is needed.
I know this should be in blue font, but that seems to be the sad reality.black people have a duty to not be inherently threatening. and they should probably enter all interactions with white folks with appropriate deference to avoid these types of situations.
You would be directed as to what to consider by the judge. Florida is putting interpretations on the law that other states have not. The pusher actually backs away a step or so when he sees the gun. That would get him prosecuted in the states which are still applying the "reasonable man" test as opposed to the Florida subjective test. He would also probably be convicted here...I know that if I were a jury member:
I would be severely biased by the knowledge of who got physical first.
The law of unintended consequences. I think the spirit of the law is to protect the innocent. In this case, the guy started the argument, then couldn't handle it when he was about to get a beat down. He could have left the situation, or tried some way to mitigate the situation. No. He pulled a gun and killed a guy.I don't even have to watch the video because of this here. The guy instigated and escalated the situation. He shouldn't fall under the protection of "Stand your ground" law.
i don't think that he was even about to get a beat down (but i think it would have been somewhat justified had it happened). he could have easily stayed down and/or slunk back to his truck, but that wouldn't satisfy his ego.The law of unintended consequences. I think the spirit of the law is to protect the innocent. In this case, the guy started the argument, then couldn't handle it when he was about to get a beat down. He could have left the situation, or tried some way to mitigate the situation. No. He pulled a gun and killed a guy.
I used to have a Glock that I kept in a cloth gun bag under the seat of my truck. I always thought about how quickly a road rage situation could escalate into a shooting. And it does happen. This is a very similar situation.
I was just attempting to put myself in the place of the parent of a young black man. What would we tell our child to do in such a moment? If he flees he may be shot for fleeing the scene. If he cowers in place and keeps his mouth shut he may be fortunate to survive the situation and only experience being roughed up and humiliated. If he reacts as a normal human would he may be executed on the spot.black people have a duty to not be inherently threatening. and they should probably enter all interactions with white folks with appropriate deference to avoid these types of situations.
I don't think "starting an argument" is an accurate description of what this man did. Walking up to a total stranger and screaming/yelling at them is an act of aggression that creates a very tense situation and generates emotions of fear which leads to tendencies of self defense in those being yelled at. This guy did much more than start an argument. He started a physical confrontation without throwing the first punch. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.The law of unintended consequences. I think the spirit of the law is to protect the innocent. In this case, the guy started the argument, then couldn't handle it when he was about to get a beat down. He could have left the situation, or tried some way to mitigate the situation. No. He pulled a gun and killed a guy.
I used to have a Glock that I kept in a cloth gun bag under the seat of my truck. I always thought about how quickly a road rage situation could escalate into a shooting. And it does happen. This is a very similar situation.
Totally agree. There is a element in law called "last clear chance'. The shooter pulls the weapon, points it at the victim, who backs up a little, or if you will, stands still. The shooter has a choice. His gun has put an end to any threat. He can get up and walk away, while still protecting himself from any perceived violence; or he can choose to shoot the man in the heart. Guilty of murder.I don't think "starting an argument" is an accurate description of what this man did. Walking up to a total stranger and screaming/yelling at them is an act of aggression that creates a very tense situation and generates emotions of fear which leads to tendencies of self defense in those being yelled at. This guy did much more than start an argument. He started a physical confrontation without throwing the first punch. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Yep. You and I are definitely in agreement on this one. I know it's (I hate this phrase but can't find another one better) a "slippery slope" to start determining who can carry and who cannot that goes beyond non criminal things. But there are some people who have no business carrying a gun whose never even had a traffic violation. Carrying, heck, just owning a gun, comes with GREAT responsibility.this is one of the reasons i favor much stricter laws for folks who want to carry weapons around in public.