FL man shoots unarmed kid. Walks home, has a beer.

TurboBlew said:
im positive youre missing the reasonable part?? I see no problem with aproperly licensed/trained citizen making that determination. Can I give you hard numbers supporting that position? No. I also think most people associate concealed weapons with ONLY guns...an asp or tazer can be substittuted for those looking to preserve life.
Click to expand...

I don't trust any of the actors in an altercation to exercise superior judgement. What's reasonable about an altercation that escalates to somebody dead? But just for grins here is a situation that happened to me last week and where SYG made me wonder:

I'm at a bar with 2 friends when a visibly angry guy comes up and begins shouting at my friend. He doesn't know where this came from and made that known. The guy persists, a buddy joins him, and they call for us to step outside to settle it. None of my buddies were in a mood to fight nor had we been convinced we needed to. That's where things should have ended. But a third drunk buddy joins, goes after the original target, and now we're all three in a scrum. Bouncers come in and everybody gets kicked out. Now there are six of us in the street. What happens now? Can somebody start shooting? Both sides had reason to fear the other so wouldn't the first guy to shoot be able to explain away their actions with SYG?
 
Joe Morris said:
I don't trust any of the actors in an altercation to exercise superior judgement. What's reasonable about an altercation that escalates to somebody dead? But just for grins here is a situation that happened to me last week and where SYG made me wonder:

I'm at a bar with 2 friends when a visibly angry guy comes up and begins shouting at my friend. He doesn't know where this came from and made that known. The guy persists, a buddy joins him, and they call for us to step outside to settle it. None of my buddies were in a mood to fight nor had we been convinced we needed to. That's where things should have ended. But a third drunk buddy joins, goes after the original target, and now we're all three in a scrum. Bouncers come in and everybody gets kicked out. Now there are six of us in the street. What happens now? Can somebody start shooting? Both sides had reason to fear the other so wouldn't the first guy to shoot be able to explain away their actions with SYG?
Click to expand...

Bar fights? How old are you?:Poke:
 
Joe Morris said:
Both sides had reason to fear the other so wouldn't the first guy to shoot be able to explain away their actions with SYG?
Click to expand...

IMHO, No.
If you are able to leave the situation...walk away...get in your car....whatever....you have no reason/business to pull/fire a gun at anyone.
 
Joe Morris said:
I don't trust any of the actors in an altercation to exercise superior judgement. What's reasonable about an altercation that escalates to somebody dead? But just for grins here is a situation that happened to me last week and where SYG made me wonder:

I'm at a bar with 2 friends when a visibly angry guy comes up and begins shouting at my friend. He doesn't know where this came from and made that known. The guy persists, a buddy joins him, and they call for us to step outside to settle it. None of my buddies were in a mood to fight nor had we been convinced we needed to. That's where things should have ended. But a third drunk buddy joins, goes after the original target, and now we're all three in a scrum. Bouncers come in and everybody gets kicked out. Now there are six of us in the street. What happens now? Can somebody start shooting? Both sides had reason to fear the other so wouldn't the first guy to shoot be able to explain away their actions with SYG?
Click to expand...

Was lethal force used or threatened? If no, then no one has the right to shoot in self defense.
 
Joe Morris said:
I don't trust any of the actors in an altercation to exercise superior judgement. What's reasonable about an altercation that escalates to somebody dead? But just for grins here is a situation that happened to me last week and where SYG made me wonder:

I'm at a bar with 2 friends when a visibly angry guy comes up and begins shouting at my friend. He doesn't know where this came from and made that known. The guy persists, a buddy joins him, and they call for us to step outside to settle it. None of my buddies were in a mood to fight nor had we been convinced we needed to. That's where things should have ended. But a third drunk buddy joins, goes after the original target, and now we're all three in a scrum. Bouncers come in and everybody gets kicked out. Now there are six of us in the street. What happens now? Can somebody start shooting? Both sides had reason to fear the other so wouldn't the first guy to shoot be able to explain away their actions with SYG?
Click to expand...

When those guys beat all your buddies ass's , they are laying in the street bleeding from the mouth, nose and ears....they are now ganging up on you, kicking the shit out of you and you think they may kill you, then you may draw your weapon and fire. (Unless you are/have been drinking, then you are fucked).
 
Britt said:
When those guys beat all your buddies ass's , they are laying in the street bleeding from the mouth, nose and ears....they are now ganging up on you, kicking the shit out of you and you think they may kill you, then you may draw your weapon and fire. (Unless you are/have been drinking, then you are fucked).
Click to expand...

:clap::up::up::up::clap:
 
Britt said:
When those guys beat all your buddies ass's , they are laying in the street bleeding from the mouth, nose and ears....they are now ganging up on you, kicking the shit out of you and you think they may kill you, then you may draw your weapon and fire. (Unless you are/have been drinking, then you are fucked).
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree. But I don't read that in the law. If I'm afraid for my life then I'm justified in using lethal force to defend myself. The mere possibility of a 3-on-1 beating would meet threshold for some. I don't need to seek safety. I don't need to see them lay a hand on anyone to prove my fears. I just need to feel afraid for my life. Or vice versa.
 
Joe Morris said:
I'd tend to agree. But I don't read that in the law. If I'm afraid for my life then I'm justified in using lethal force to defend myself. The mere possibility of a 3-on-1 beating would meet threshold for some. I don't need to seek safety. I don't need to see them lay a hand on anyone to prove my fears. I just need to feel afraid for my life. Or vice versa.
Click to expand...

You were in a Bar...Drinking...Law does not apply...If you draw a weapon and fire, You are in the Wrong and going to Jail.
 
Britt said:
You were in a Bar...Drinking...Law does not apply...If you draw a weapon and fire, You are in the Wrong and going to Jail.
Click to expand...

I think we're in agreement on what is right and what is wrong here. I just don't see that reflected in the letter of the law.
 
Britt said:
When those guys beat all your buddies ass's , they are laying in the street bleeding from the mouth, nose and ears....they are now ganging up on you, kicking the shit out of you and you think they may kill you, then you may draw your weapon and fire. (Unless you are/have been drinking, then you are fucked).
Click to expand...

And to add bringing a weapon to a bar...huge no no. Hypothetically speaking.
 
Joe Morris said:
I don't trust any of the actors in an altercation to exercise superior judgement. What's reasonable about an altercation that escalates to somebody dead? But just for grins here is a situation that happened to me last week and where SYG made me wonder:

I'm at a bar with 2 friends when a visibly angry guy comes up and begins shouting at my friend. He doesn't know where this came from and made that known. The guy persists, a buddy joins him, and they call for us to step outside to settle it. None of my buddies were in a mood to fight nor had we been convinced we needed to. That's where things should have ended. But a third drunk buddy joins, goes after the original target, and now we're all three in a scrum. Bouncers come in and everybody gets kicked out. Now there are six of us in the street. What happens now? Can somebody start shooting? Both sides had reason to fear the other so wouldn't the first guy to shoot be able to explain away their actions with SYG?
Click to expand...

Who won?

I keep thinking about your other post, longing for the good old days of settling differences with a good brawl, not having to worry about SYG issues. I'm going to guess, prior to your reveal, that you all just parted company. The laws on SYG are very clear, IMHO.

Here's one thing about brawls and SYG that you may have not considered. Guys like Buck, Nazif, or maybe yourself, brawl when it suits them because they are beefcakes. If they brawl, they'll usually "win". If they don't, it is not because they are cowards. Do you remember the scene in Schindler's List where Schindler convinced the German commander not to kill prisoners because it was more macho to allow them to live? That's how big guys frequently decide when to jump in.

Contrast that with someone my size. Guys like me are frequently on the wrong side of the beat down. You know that your ass is going to get kicked but that's a lot better than showing that you are a coward. The end question is whether the guy handing out the whooping knows when to quit.
 
nigel smith said:
Tanks, I respect your perspective, but statistics can be misleading. Depending on whose statistics you choose to believe, a 71% conviction rate would be a lower percentage than the overall conviction rate for the entire population.
Click to expand...

yup you are correct, numbers can say whatever you want them to. But, you see my overall point.
 
povol said:
What exactly is racist about quoting Chicago black on black murder stats. Is that somehow profiling. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, I know that I said I would refrain from posting in this thread any more, but I must post one more time to clarify, since you failed to mention the part of Todd's post that was really racist.

He said "well we already know, the blacks in this country dont give a shit when a black kills another black, hell, the 700 black teens killed in Chicago just since this incident happened in FLA is a prime example of that."

The highlighted part is the racist generalization that he made. The fact that he thought that Chicago's epidemic of black on black violence proved his racist generalization was just strange, but not exactly racist in itself. The young black males killing each other are the slim minority amongst black people in general, and millions of black people, as well as reasonable, sympathetic white people do in fact, "give a shit" about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top