[Asgardian]

Originally Posted by ori01 ↗

I mean he does not have to shoot the guy.He had nothing.No weapons at all.

Out of all the arguments that always come up in every self defense (didn't need to shoot, could have retreated, could have shot a bullet off of a streetlight so it ricocheted into an ass-cheek), this is the one that I feel is the weakest.

Like, arguments about retreating or "non-kill shots" or something... I can at least see the merit of those arguments. Those are somewhat morality calls - even though legally they're pretty poor, I can understand the argument that ethically, someone should have handled it different, even if I disagree with it.

But the argument that someone was unarmed.... If I'm not mistaken, a double-digit percentage of murders are committed by people without conventional weapons. Fists, rocks, hammers, clubs, screwdriver they pick up next to them or... whatever. So the idea that the guy was harmless because he had no gun, I don't think that's an argument to hang your hat on.

As far as shooting the guy even if he "didn't need to"... I ascribe to the belief that a gun is a deterrent, first and foremost. A deterrent, by nature, must be extremely severe and disproportionate to prevent a person from considering whether the act is worth the negative consequence. A gun can, and will, and should be used to kill. That's as steep a consequence, as strong a deterrent as you can get. If that potential, that fear doesn't stop you, there's not fuck all on this planet that can safely be relied on to deter you. To me, the instant you decide to put hands on someone who has a gun in their hands, you've shown to me that, even if you're unarmed, you either don't believe in that deterrent, or the fear of death is enough to stop you from from doing whatever it is you're trying to do. If the potential of death is not enough to stop you, I don't believe someone can or should have to rely on anything else to stop you either.. And at that point, I feel you have every right and permission to enact that negative consequence.

[deanmine]

No charges were ever filled.

Grand jury wouldn't do it. From what I member

[Arevalosocom]

Grand Jury said Nah.....

When an armed man tells you to get the fuck off his land in America you better fucking listen.

If someone is on your property and says “do it, shoot me” while you are holding a gun……

The homeowner waited way to long to shoot, just like Kyle Rittenhouse showed way too much restraint.

[Tyrantus]

Originally Posted by Asgardian ↗

Out of all the arguments that always come up in every self defense (didn't need to shoot, could have retreated, could have shot a bullet off of a streetlight so it ricocheted into an ass-cheek), this is the one that I feel is the weakest.

Like, arguments about retreating or "non-kill shots" or something... I can at least see the merit of those arguments. Those are somewhat morality calls - even though legally they're pretty poor, I can understand the argument that ethically, someone should have handled it different, even if I disagree with it.

But the argument that someone was unarmed.... If I'm not mistaken, a double-digit percentage of murders are committed by people without conventional weapons. Fists, rocks, hammers, clubs, screwdriver they pick up next to them or... whatever. So the idea that the guy was harmless because he had no gun, I don't think that's an argument to hang your hat on.

As far as shooting the guy even if he "didn't need to"... I ascribe to the belief that a gun is a deterrent, first and foremost. A deterrent, by nature, must be extremely severe and disproportionate to prevent a person from considering whether the act is worth the negative consequence. A gun can, and will, and should be used to kill. That's as steep a consequence, as strong a deterrent as you can get. If that potential, that fear doesn't stop you, there's not fuck all on this planet that can safely be relied on to deter you. To me, the instant you decide to put hands on someone who has a gun in their hands, you've shown to me that, even if you're unarmed, you either don't believe in that deterrent, or the fear of death is enough to stop you from from doing whatever it is you're trying to do. If the potential of death is not enough to stop you, I don't believe someone can or should have to rely on anything else to stop you either.. And at that point, I feel you have every right and permission to enact that negative consequence.

Even though I dont like it, I agree. The grand jury's decision to not pursue criminal charges kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth to be honest, but I can accept their decision, the guy was acting within the confines of the law.

My issue with this case is an ethical one, that being he deliberately put himself in a position where deadly force may be necessary to defend himself.

[GlowingGhoul]

Originally Posted by Tyrantus ↗

Even though I dont like it, I agree. The grand jury's decision to not pursue criminal charges kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth to be honest, but I can accept their decision, the guy was acting within the confines of the law.

My issue with this case is an ethical one, that being he deliberately put himself in a position where deadly force may be necessary to defend himself.

What's your argument? He did something to contribute to the situation, so when the guy makes it clear he wants to grab the homeowner's gun and kill him, he should just allow it because it's tge homeowner's fault for aggravating thing?

The question should never be "Can I shout?" but rather "Do I have to shoot?" and it got to a point where it's reasonable to say yes.

[TriniWeird]

Originally Posted by noob1974 ↗

Why didn't anybody help him?

When you’re a dumb ass n wrong they don’t help. + don’t step on a guy’s property when he’s holding his gun

[Tyrantus]

Originally Posted by GlowingGhoul ↗

What's your argument? He did something to contribute to the situation, so when the guy makes it clear he wants to grab the homeowner's gun and kill him, he should just allow it because it's tge homeowner's fault for aggravating thing?

The question should never be "Can I shout?" but rather "Do I have to shoot?" and it got to a point where it's reasonable to say yes.

My argument is they were both stupid and made bad decisions but the shooting was justified in its legality.

[daveywavey10]

Originally Posted by Asgardian ↗

Out of all the arguments that always come up in every self defense (didn't need to shoot, could have retreated, could have shot a bullet off of a streetlight so it ricocheted into an ass-cheek), this is the one that I feel is the weakest.

Like, arguments about retreating or "non-kill shots" or something... I can at least see the merit of those arguments. Those are somewhat morality calls - even though legally they're pretty poor, I can understand the argument that ethically, someone should have handled it different, even if I disagree with it.

But the argument that someone was unarmed.... If I'm not mistaken, a double-digit percentage of murders are committed by people without conventional weapons. Fists, rocks, hammers, clubs, screwdriver they pick up next to them or... whatever. So the idea that the guy was harmless because he had no gun, I don't think that's an argument to hang your hat on.

As far as shooting the guy even if he "didn't need to"... I ascribe to the belief that a gun is a deterrent, first and foremost. A deterrent, by nature, must be extremely severe and disproportionate to prevent a person from considering whether the act is worth the negative consequence. A gun can, and will, and should be used to kill. That's as steep a consequence, as strong a deterrent as you can get. If that potential, that fear doesn't stop you, there's not fuck all on this planet that can safely be relied on to deter you. To me, the instant you decide to put hands on someone who has a gun in their hands, you've shown to me that, even if you're unarmed, you either don't believe in that deterrent, or the fear of death is enough to stop you from from doing whatever it is you're trying to do. If the potential of death is not enough to stop you, I don't believe someone can or should have to rely on anything else to stop you either.. And at that point, I feel you have every right and permission to enact that negative consequence.

I think he was too quick to take out the gun but once the guy kept coming he had to shoot at that stage

[daveywavey10]

Originally Posted by Konamama ↗

I’m just waiting for all the motherfuckers on this platform to comment on how stupid white people are. Somehow they only get racist when Black people kill each other

You’ll never figure it out because you’re not intelligent or intellectually strong enough to comprehend the differences

[lutherieguy]

Don't try and be a tough guy on another man's property and be fighting with his lady.. That is just a quick way to get fucked up, and justified in many places including Texas. Chad should have fucking known better.. Is that the sam Chad Read who was guilty of embezzling from fitness clubs with his accountant ex-wife? If so he was an all around moron d-bag. Darwin approved.