quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The guy was waving a gun around, shouting crazy shit, and shooting at them. Of course they were justified in taking defensive action. What crazy fucking planet are you living on that they aren't? It just goes to show your crazy bias in favor of the guys with guns. He'd already committed several felonies by that point, you do understand that right? Does assault with a deadly weapon mean anything to you?

You idiot all that would have done was increased the body count or getting the shooting done earlier, but you can't see that, all you can see is sticking it to anyone with a gun.

Would they or would they not have been justified in taking defensive action? Answer the question. Put a gun in one of their hands and tell me if he would have been justified in shooting. Then take the gun away and tell me if that changes anything. Why or why not.

The simple fact is they were in a classic self defense situation. A real self defense situation not the bullshit ones you defend. If they had acted the man who is now dead might not be which is the whole point of self defense.

Lets pretend for a moment that your brilliant human wave attack only changes the result from one dead floater to one dead man with a gun.
There would be a point well before death when all semblance of a threat would disappear.
Thus instead of one dead and one in prison we would have at least one dead and three or four in prison.
You don't start a gunfight when you don't have a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Now who precisely is stupid

You are.
Sudden passion would be where a good lawyer would make hay from the dead man making a move on his gun.

I only insult close minded morons like you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Nope. They had an absolute right to defend themselves and that included killing him if that is what it took to keep him from killing them. Do you not understand that? That is the right you keep defending when various idiots with guns shoot people. In this case it was the unarmed people who had the right but that changes nothing. I know you are slow but do try and think. Like I said put a gun in their hands and it will become clear to you.


Typical of your stupidity.
Rushing him would have just started the shooting easier.
If you had the brains to argue that they should have jumped him and disarmed him you would
only be guilty of being a lousy tactician but to argue they had every right to continue the beating when he was incapacitated is like arguing that it is ok to stand over a seriously wounded mugger
and continuing to pimp rounds into him. Are you bright enough to comprehend this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Nope. They had an absolute right to defend themselves and that included killing him if that is what it took to keep him from killing them. Do you not understand that? That is the right you keep defending when various idiots with guns shoot people. In this case it was the unarmed people who had the right but that changes nothing. I know you are slow but do try and think. Like I said put a gun in their hands and it will become clear to you.


Typical of your stupidity.
Rushing him would have just started the shooting easier.
If you had the brains to argue that they should have jumped him and disarmed him you would
only be guilty of being a lousy tactician but to argue they had every right to continue the beating when he was incapacitated is like arguing that it is ok to stand over a seriously wounded mugger
and continuing to pimp rounds into him. Are you bright enough to comprehend this.

You continue to confuse their rights with feasibility. Did they or did they not have the right to do take defensive action? Answer the question without evasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Nope. They had an absolute right to defend themselves and that included killing him if that is what it took to keep him from killing them. Do you not understand that? That is the right you keep defending when various idiots with guns shoot people. In this case it was the unarmed people who had the right but that changes nothing. I know you are slow but do try and think. Like I said put a gun in their hands and it will become clear to you.


Typical of your stupidity.
Rushing him would have just started the shooting easier.
If you had the brains to argue that they should have jumped him and disarmed him you would
only be guilty of being a lousy tactician but to argue they had every right to continue the beating when he was incapacitated is like arguing that it is ok to stand over a seriously wounded mugger
and continuing to pimp rounds into him. Are you bright enough to comprehend this.

You continue to confuse their rights with feasibility. Did they or did they not have the right to do take defensive action? Answer the question without evasion.

Defensive action yes \
A brutal murder no
If you can't see that beating him to death would go beyond defensive action to murder you are an idiot
Once again you pretend I said something I didn't.
I didn't say they couldn't defend themselves, I said it would have been the kind of stupid
tactics I would expect you to propose.
And I said that taking it to the level you supported would go well beyond self defense.
You are the one who is being evasive, I objected to saying they should beat him to death, which is completely separate from their right of self defense.
You have the right to cross the street with the light, you don't have the right to aim your car at a jaywalker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Nope. They had an absolute right to defend themselves and that included killing him if that is what it took to keep him from killing them. Do you not understand that? That is the right you keep defending when various idiots with guns shoot people. In this case it was the unarmed people who had the right but that changes nothing. I know you are slow but do try and think. Like I said put a gun in their hands and it will become clear to you.


Typical of your stupidity.
Rushing him would have just started the shooting easier.
If you had the brains to argue that they should have jumped him and disarmed him you would
only be guilty of being a lousy tactician but to argue they had every right to continue the beating when he was incapacitated is like arguing that it is ok to stand over a seriously wounded mugger
and continuing to pimp rounds into him. Are you bright enough to comprehend this.

You continue to confuse their rights with feasibility. Did they or did they not have the right to do take defensive action? Answer the question without evasion.

Defensive action yes \
A brutal murder no
If you can't see that beating him to death would go beyond defensive action to murder you are an idiot
Once again you pretend I said something I didn't.
I didn't say they couldn't defend themselves, I said it would have been the kind of stupid
tactics I would expect you to propose.
And I said that taking it to the level you supported would go well beyond self defense.
You are the one who is being evasive, I objected to saying they should beat him to death, which is completely separate from their right of self defense.
You have the right to cross the street with the light, you don't have the right to aim your car at a jaywalker.

Self defense against a person with a deadly weapon always extends to ending that person. That is what you support. That is implicit in carrying firearms. Are you so clueless that you do not understand that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no SYG in MO, the guy was nowhere near on his property, and his story changed, self-defense being the last desperate lie, in a long line of lies, in order to subvert justice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, he is tilting at windmills. In some states (not in FL) the supposition of self-defense and its definition and necessary and sufficient conditions do not apply to those engaged at the time in anti-social pursuits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Some posters were blaming the victim and Pomeranz (sp?) was defending the "rights" of the shooter.

Simply Michael, now dearly departed, was most accurate -- that if you are going to shoot someone dead, it's best not to leave any witnesses alive to contradict your claim of self-defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

Do you realize that if you are right you have built a case for Cocker being in reasonable fear for his life?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no SYG in MO, the guy was nowhere near on his property, and his story changed, self-defense being the last desperate lie, in a long line of lies, in order to subvert justice.

yes, never said he was innocent.
It was Domken who built the case for self defense, not me

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

You did not say he should have been disarmed.
You did not say he should have been subdued.
You did not say he should have been disabled.
You specifically said he should have been beaten to death.
Clearly you don't understand that most often people don't die from a gunshot wound.
I support shooting an attacker, not standing over him and firing into his body.