Argument Over Parking Spot Turns Deadly in Florida

[llanoflash 151]

terry tate was fairly impressed by the hit.
 

no reason to kill someone though. shit.. the poor kid in the store watching his dad die really sucks.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gene Parmesan 4016]

How are stand your ground laws supposed to even work, and what is the difference between it and old fashioned self defense?  It seems they justify the shooter under worst case scenario assumptions which basically means any altercation would justify a shooting.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Gene Parmesan

[woohorn 1131]

How are stand your ground laws supposed to even work, and what is the difference between it and old fashioned self defense? 

Simple, no duty to retreat.

Until its not so simple.

[Errestaurants 2570]

 

[Errestaurants 2570]

From another site

 

Here is the law in Florida:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(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.

Section .041 probably deserves a mention as well.

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.[/quote]

So let's use your post here 

It says deadly force is justified against a "forcible felony" shoving someone to the ground is not a felony class b misdemeanor at best.

Further down in .041 it says 

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself,
 

[RPM 26358]

48 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Public Shame seems to be the only available action for assholes parking in HC spaces. Police don’t have time for that.

Sterling Brown begs to differ.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

2 hours ago, SDG said:

Police aren’t pursuing charges, but the video says the prosecutor has the case so time will tell.

 

 

Of course the police aren't pursuing charges. Those trigger happy fucks don't want anyone questioning a "clean shoot".

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

2 hours ago, GabrielsHorn said:

It also is neglecting that the shove came after he drew customers out of the store from being so unruly, and that he had threatened to shoot someone once before. He's a piece of shit that should be in jail. 

e: And based on previous reports, the guy had been known to assault/harass others at the same place. He was looking for a fight. 

Obvious solution is to park there and wait for him to come yell at you for parking in a handicap spot without tags and then blast him because you feared for your life.

 

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21935]

She was still in the car, and since she was waiting for her BF and son to run in, I'm betting the car was still running for the AC so I'm not sure that meets the definition of parking.  I see that all the time in the fire lanes in front of grocery stores and haven't yet seen anyone killed over it.  I would imagine that the woman was as much in fear of bodily harm as was the pussy piece of shit.  As noted he wasn't even parked in a marked parking spot so he was clearly parked illegally.  Also seeing how he was not a customer of the store, he was probably trespassing as well.  The dude was really proud that he could carry a weapon and it was just a matter of time before he used it.  It's just too bad he didn't try to use it on someone who was armed as well.  Not that he probably has any net worth, but he is probably going to get sued into oblivion.

 

I don't believe that his actions meet the definition under the Florida statute.  It only allows the use of deadly force if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.  Also, there is some question in my mind as to whether or not the shooter was engaged in a criminal activity (i.e. if he had threatened the woman) or if he actually had a right to be in that parking lot.  At the very least, I think it should be a matter for a jury to decide.

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(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.

Edited July 23, 2018 by NeverMarryAStripper

[Aqua Buddha 14622]

15 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Obvious solution is to park there and wait for him to come yell at you for parking in a handicap spot without tags and then blast him because you feared for your life.

 

 

You'd totally get away with it, too.  If anyone had the right to shoot here, it was the black guy.  He came out of a store and saw and armed man confronting his wife.  He had the right to defend them.

The only reason the old, white guy walked up to that car with his chest out is that he knew he was armed.  

Such a bullshit case.

[Carl Spackler 3504]

12 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You'd totally get away with it, too.  If anyone had the right to shoot here, it was the black guy.  He came out of a store and saw and armed man confronting his wife.  He had the right to defend them.

The only reason the old, white guy walked up to that car with his chest out is that he knew he was armed.  

Such a bullshit case.

I said above that I don't believe the "stand your ground" defense should apply here, but I disagree that the decedent had a right to knock the shooter down.  The shooter was not assaulting the woman at the time.  You say that the decedent "came out of the store and saw an armed man confronting his wife."  No.  He had no idea the guy was armed.  He came out of the store and saw the shooter and his wife having an argument.  Indeed, it was the wife who exited her vehicle to confront the shooter right before the decedent knocked the shooter to the ground.  The fact that the shooter was having an argument with his wife didn't give the decedent the right to go up to the guy and knock him down.

With that said, though (and as I stated above), the shooter then should not have discharged his handgun.  The decedent didn't try to approach him after knocking him down, so the shooter didn't (in my opinion) have a reasonable basis to believe that he was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm.  He should not have shot the guy, and I don't think he should be protected by the "stand your ground" law.

 

 

 

[pokeNbeans 203]

Shooter had a right to pull his gun and point it at the guy to back him off. Choosing to pull the trigger when the dude was moving backward makes it murder or manslaughter. Really surprised he's not facing charges.

[Orca of Peace 109]

31 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You'd totally get away with it, too.  If anyone had the right to shoot here, it was the black guy.  He came out of a store and saw and armed man confronting his wife.  He had the right to defend them.

The only reason the old, white guy walked up to that car with his chest out is that he knew he was armed.  

Such a bullshit case.

the concealed handgun was not visible to the black guy when he walked back to his vehicle. Only after the shove, when the white man was on the ground, was the gun revealed. 

[Clintonaldo 2576]

6 hours ago, Brock Sampson said:

Very sad all around.  Would the father still be alive if he had not shoved the guy yelling to the ground?  Why couldn't the white guy just call the police and report an assault?  This is a very grey area.  If he had tried to get back up and the black guy charges at him again, then I think it's Stand Your Ground for sure.  But it seemed like he was just shoving him away.  I dunno.  

I see people that do shit to piss me off all the time but you just don't know who is armed and crazy anymore.  It's better to just call the cops.  

Good point. I get upset daily at shit other drivers do and I take it personal when people park shitty but I am 37 years old now and have learned to just let it go and that it isn’t worth it. I normally just take a deep breath and count to 5 and try to forget about it. I don’t carry in my vehicle because I don’t think I am mature enough. I think “ some” people that carry feel tougher and look for a reason sometimes. 

[TwiceHorn 31541]

4 hours ago, Errestaurants said:

From another site

 

Here is the law in Florida:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(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.

Section .041 probably deserves a mention as well.

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.[/quote]

So let's use your post here 

It says deadly force is justified against a "forcible felony" shoving someone to the ground is not a felony class b misdemeanor at best.

Further down in .041 it says 

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself,
 

That really isn't much different than usual self-defense., which requires proportionality between the force used and the threat of harm.  The "no duty to retreat" might be a little extra spin on old-fashioned self-defense.

 

Regardless, much like it wasn't Comey's call whether to prosecute Hilary, it isn't Sheriff Bobby Walnuts' call either.  It should be left to the prosecuting attorney.  Given this guy's history of doing stuff like this, I think there's a pretty good jury question whether he was actually or legitimately in fear of death or great bodily harm.  Self-defense and "stand your ground" still have to be presented and proven to a jury, as far as I know.

[LongestHorn 759]

If you ever get pushed to the ground in FL, you are authorized to kill.  Good to know.

Edited July 24, 2018 by LongestHorn

[SDG 3319]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That really isn't much different than usual self-defense., which requires proportionality between the force used and the threat of harm.  The "no duty to retreat" might be a little extra spin on old-fashioned self-defense.

 

Regardless, much like it wasn't Comey's call whether to prosecute Hilary, it isn't Sheriff Bobby Walnuts' call either.  It should be left to the prosecuting attorney.  Given this guy's history of doing stuff like this, I think there's a pretty good jury question whether he was actually or legitimately in fear of death or great bodily harm.  Self-defense and "stand your ground" still have to be presented and proven to a jury, as far as I know.

This is correct. The sheriff is looking at this incident, in a vacuum, and determined that Joe Bob was standing his ground. He also pointed out that the prosecutor has and is reviewing the case.  I’m sure he will, if he can, charge this guy with something.   

Edited July 24, 2018 by SDG

[DanRydell 799]

How are stand your ground laws supposed to even work, and what is the difference between it and old fashioned self defense?  It seems they justify the shooter under worst case scenario assumptions which basically means any altercation would justify a shooting.

At common law, you had a duty to retreat before resorting to deadly self defense. If you could have safely retreated and avoided the necessity of lethal self defense, you were required to.

That was modified in many jurisdictions by the castle doctrine, which eliminated the duty to retreat if in one’s home (extended also to one’s workplace or car in some places).

Stand your ground laws just eliminate the duty to retreat altogether, no matter where you are.

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, Clintonaldo said:

Good point. I get upset daily at shit other drivers do and I take it personal when people park shitty but I am 37 years old now and have learned to just let it go and that it isn’t worth it. I normally just take a deep breath and count to 5 and try to forget about it. I don’t carry in my vehicle because I don’t think I am mature enough. I think “ some” people that carry feel tougher and look for a reason sometimes. 

i never understood, even in my youth, why anyone would get so upset at other drivers. It's not like their actions will cost you more than 0.35 of a second right? It's basically nothing 99% of the time. Oooh  that guy cut me off and got in front of me! That made me 0.35 of a second later than i would have been! 

[Clintonaldo 2576]

1 minute ago, Orca of Peace said:

i never understood, even in my youth, why anyone would get so upset at other drivers. It's not like their actions will cost you more than 0.35 of a second right? It's basically nothing 99% of the time. Oooh  that guy cut me off and got in front of me! That made me 0.35 of a second later than i would have been! 

I can’t explain it. It is almost a feeling of someone has wronged me. I wish pot were legal as I would smoke it and never care about driving again. 

[Eastwood 4394]

36 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

i never understood, even in my youth, why anyone would get so upset at other drivers. It's not like their actions will cost you more than 0.35 of a second right? It's basically nothing 99% of the time. Oooh  that guy cut me off and got in front of me! That made me 0.35 of a second later than i would have been! 

Dehumanization. You see the cars as objects and not people. It's much easier to be mad at the object and actually emboldens a lot of people, as they are not as worried about confrontation compared to being angry with and yelling at a person who bumps into them on the street.

Count me in the "this is murder" camp. Dude did it because he thought he would get away with it. He pulled the gun and thought about it before he did it.

[TKthunder2 4997]

2 hours ago, LongestHorn said:

If you ever get pushed to the ground in FL, you are authorized to kill.  Good to know.

You’re not wrong.

Look, I think it’s horrble and the shooter is clearly an asshole but it’s not murder per the law (and even without the law it’s still only manslaughter).

If the old dude gets forcibly thrown to the ground he’s allowed to pull out the gun and shoot.  If the guy is literally running away and getting shot in the back then maybe they could try to challenge the stand your ground aspect but as it is he’s protected.

Again, any self defense CHL class would call this a bad shooting but legally the guy is protected because the law give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and even though we can break the video down frame by frame the law doesn’t really care it’s only about his frame of mind.

[CDAK 216]

Disclaimer:  I have not watched the video because I don't want to watch someone die

Hitting or shoving people in parking lots is deadly.  During my first year of law school, one of my good friend's dad was murdered at a gas station.  He was filling up his tank and someone surprised him from behind or the side demanding his wallet and cell phone.  My friend's dad is caught off guard but tries to comply.  He fumbles with his wallet for a couple of seconds and the guy hits him.  My friend's dad's head hits the curb on the way down.  Coma.  Few days later, dead.  We went to a funeral for my 25 year old friend's 50-something dad.

I'm not advocating for the shooter.  Again, I haven't watched the video. But a grown man assaulting someone in a parking lot is not a schoolyard fight as some seem to be deeming it.  It is absolutely an action that can reasonably result in the victim's death.

 

[Aqua Buddha 14622]

George Zimmerman chased a kid down an alley and shot him when he started getting his ass kicked.  This case is pretty similar.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21935]

the law doesn’t really care it’s only about his frame of mind.

No the law is about a reasonable person’s frame of mind

[Shmitty 112]

8 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

Plenty of blame to go around here. 

1.  Don't park in a handicapped spot.  It certainly doesn't justify a death, but it's worth noting that none of this happens if the decedent parks in a non-handicapped spot.  I'll just leave it at that.

2.  That was a pretty hard shove/assault by the decedent.  He had no right to do that.  His wife/girlfriend was not being physically assaulted by the white dude.  If the situation had played out properly, the shooter would have simply called the cops and the decedent would have been arrested for assault.

3.  Decedent seemed to be backing away at the time the first shot was fired, so I question whether this is an appropriate application of the "stand your ground" law.  The relevant text is: 

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.

So the question is whether the shooter reasonably believed that using deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.  Granted, he had just gotten violently knocked to the ground.  However, the decedent was not approaching him while on the ground (in fact, the video indicates he started to back up once he saw the shooter draw his firearm), so I have a hard time buying that the shooter reasonably believed he was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm at the time he used deadly force.  Did the shooter have the right to draw his weapon to prevent further violence to himself?  Yes.  Did he have a right to shoot?  Based on what I've seen to date, I don't think so.

But, like I said, plenty of blame to go around for everyone.  It's a very sad situation.

 

Not really, especially when the guy was itching to use his gun.  Such is the mindset found within our gun culture.  

7 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Plenty of blame to go around, like don't shove someone which apparently is equally as bad as executing a guy in front of his girlfriend and child. Give me a fucking break.

I think everyone here would agree that it's not a smart move to shove someone in that situation, that in no fucking way comes even close to justifying being shot dead, pull your heads out of your asses.

Thank you, and enjoy the + rep.  

[TwiceHorn 31541]

30 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

You’re not wrong.

Look, I think it’s horrble and the shooter is clearly an asshole but it’s not murder per the law (and even without the law it’s still only manslaughter).

If the old dude gets forcibly thrown to the ground he’s allowed to pull out the gun and shoot.  If the guy is literally running away and getting shot in the back then maybe they could try to challenge the stand your ground aspect but as it is he’s protected.

Again, any self defense CHL class would call this a bad shooting but legally the guy is protected because the law give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and even though we can break the video down frame by frame the law doesn’t really care it’s only about his frame of mind.

I don't think it's manslaughter, which varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but requires recklessness or negligence in causing death.  In Texas, those two are manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.  I think most jurisdictions lump them together.

 

Here, there's no way you avoid an intent to kill or seriously injure, which pretty much makes it murder.  In Texas, this would be "second degree" murder, or a murder that is provoked, short of self-defense, that is a lesser-degree felony (second), with lesser punishment than plain old first degree murder.

[LongestHorn 759]

35 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

 it’s only about his frame of mind.

And we know he'll testify that as he was going to the ground, he thought he might be killed if he didn't kill him first.  He believed his attacker might have turned away from him to pull a gun or spear.  He thanks God he has his gun.  Its the only thing that saved his life.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21935]

Unless that was a reasonable belief it is completely irrelevant under the statute

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

3 hours ago, LongestHorn said:

If you ever get pushed to the ground in FL, you are authorized to kill.  Good to know.

Pushed to the ground by a black guy at least. And you are white.

[Orca of Peace 109]

3 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Pushed to the ground by a black guy at least. And you are white.

sounds like Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman part 2, but this time with a video and the new Trayvon wasn't even beating up the new Zimmerman.

[RPM 26358]

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

 

No the law is about a reasonable person’s frame of mind

 

We're talking Florida.

[Carl Spackler 3504]

1 hour ago, Shmitty said:

Not really, especially when the guy was itching to use his gun.  Such is the mindset found within our gun culture.  

 

Apparently you don't comprehend well.  I said the stand your ground law shouldn't apply and that he was wrong to shoot the guy. 

[RPM 26358]

I watched the video unfortunately. If I was on a grand jury, I'd have to vote to indict. He was too quick on the draw with the guy backing away after a defensive incident. 

I started to say less than lethal incident, but that's not really accurate. The boyfriend came in swift but he could have ramped up the damage and gone for the guy's head then continued to engage. That's not what happened. He saw some random old dude shouting at his gf and in a hard defensive move, shoved the aggressor in the chest and established a boundary. He was defensive. Old man escalated things rapidly without cause, imo. To use an old phrase, he was just looking for an excuse.

Scared? Yes. Under imminent threat? No. Florida? Yes.

Edited July 24, 2018 by RPM

[Aqua Buddha 14622]

I'm glad we're all carrying guns now so minor situations like this can escalate into gun battles which makes more people want to carry guns which is the NRA's real goal.

[Steamboat1874 4085]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I'm glad we're all carrying guns now so minor situations like this can escalate into gun battles which makes more people want to carry guns which is the NRA's real goal.

Yes everyone should be packing everywhere we go.....it makes us all so much more safe.......

That is what they say......and they are full of shit.

These kinds of things will be much more frequent.

[Aqua Buddha 14622]

17 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Yes everyone should be packing everywhere we go.....it makes us all so much more safe.......

That is what they say......and they are full of shit.

These kinds of things will be much more frequent.

Yeah, that old guy thought and still thinks he's a "good guy with a gun."

People like him are walking everywhere around us....

[dirtonia 269]

What if I am in the parking lot, and see what I believe to be a murder happen in front of me, and I pull my strap and blast on the shooter. Am in the clear or naw?

[Gene Parmesan 4016]

6 minutes ago, dirtonia said:

What if I am in the parking lot, and see what I believe to be a murder happen in front of me, and I pull my strap and blast on the shooter. Am in the clear or naw?

I was thinking of this very scenario.  Would another shooter blasting away at the first shooter also be in the clear, and where does that chain end if at all?  If there is no duty to retreat I have to think that a second shooter is even more justified as he has at least witnessed evidence of lethal intent.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

14 hours ago, Clintonaldo said:

Good point. I get upset daily at shit other drivers do and I take it personal when people park shitty but I am 37 years old now and have learned to just let it go and that it isn’t worth it. I normally just take a deep breath and count to 5 and try to forget about it. I don’t carry in my vehicle because I don’t think I am mature enough. I think “ some” people that carry feel tougher and look for a reason sometimes. 

Good call. Just think how shitty their lives must be that this is the way they act in public. They are their own worst enemy and likely reap the rewards of that daily. 

They aren't worth getting upset about. And frankly, if that shit triggers you, you should reconsider your ability to carry. You aren't mentally stable enough to do so IMNSHO.

[Clintonaldo 2576]

Good call. Just think how shitty their lives must be that this is the way they act in public. They are their own worst enemy and likely reap the rewards of that daily. 
They aren't worth getting upset about. And frankly, if that shit triggers you, you should reconsider your ability to carry. You aren't mentally stable enough to do so IMNSHO.

Yep, and that’s why I don’t carry. I might one day but I need to mature a little bit and I am glad I have the self awareness to realize that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[woohorn 1131]

The auto repo man scenario always bothered me in TX. OK to blast away?

[BottleRocket 647]

 

[ButtFumble 5183]

2 minutes ago, woohorn said:

The auto repo man scenario always bothered me in TX. OK to blast away?

no they are not stealing your property they are taking legal possession of the lenders property

plenty of people have been prosecuted for shooting a repoman in Texas that was doing a lawful repossession....it is not legal to use force to stop them

[AbeFroman 2206]

20 hours ago, smuggs said:

Anybody else notice on the video that parking patrol didn't even pull up in a marked space.

 

Silver 4Runner on the right:

That looks like the type of place where you might get shot.

[WhatTheBuck 28804]

You've heard of liquid courage. I'd call this lead courage. I'll bet he never would've made a scene if he wasn't armed. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

44 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I was thinking of this very scenario.  Would another shooter blasting away at the first shooter also be in the clear, and where does that chain end if at all?  If there is no duty to retreat I have to think that a second shooter is even more justified as he has at least witnessed evidence of lethal intent.

Wondering the same. What if the girlfriend had a concealed carry permit? Would she have been in the right to put a bullet in the old guy after he shoots her boyfriend? 

[hpslugga 4062]

21 hours ago, Smax said:

don't start no shit wont be no shit

and don't park in a handicap spot unless you're handicapped 

 

20 hours ago, Bacon Gayfield said:

There's about a million posts about douchebag parkers on the shag/surly regarding how disgusting and infuriating it is when non-handicap people park in handicap spots. Now suddenly, when a black couple does it, and you add in some assault on a "white male gun nut", suddenly you people take the side of the douchebags, because politics. Never waste a "tragedy"!

You leftists are a reprehensible bunch. Just foul.

You DO NOT park in handicap spots when you're not handicapped. 

You DO NOT assault people. 

If he had not assaulted the man, he wouldn't be dead.

And these, ladies and gentlemen, are the personification of today's gun nut culture in today's "conservative" movement. If it can be argued by a 14-year old, then it will be.

[Smax 3800]

5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

 

And these, ladies and gentlemen, are the personification of today's gun nut culture in today's "conservative" movement. If it can be argued by a 14-year old, then it will be.

 

Youre right, smaller weaker people just need to deal with the fact that larger and stronger individuals can assault them for yelling and there is nothing they can do to defend themselves ..

[TornACL 7722]

4 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

Youre right, smaller weaker people just need to deal with the fact that larger and stronger individuals can assault them for yelling and there is nothing they can do to defend themselves ..

The one thing you've got right is that you're a small, weak man if you feel the need to draw and fire when you've been pushed to the ground.