One of the first things I said was he didn't deserve to die. The guy (shooter) probably was just looking for trouble and definitely shouldn't have been engaged in a shouting match with the woman. But that's all in hindsight. We already know the background story. I'm assuming if there is no such knowledge. When you take things to a physical level someone is usually going to get hurt. You guys are just quibbling over what degree that hurt should be for a shove.. a punch.. a thrown object.. etc. You can't make those determinations on the fly with a complete stranger. Whenever you physically accost someone it could very real quick. That's why it's best just not to.

I'm not trying to sound like a tough guy. I said earlier ITT that I'm the exact opposite. I'm a coward. But I grew up on city streets. I've been shot. I watched a buddy get into a fight and kill someone when he punched him and the guy's head snapped back and hit a brick wall. My buddy did 5 years for that. I don't think some of you guys realize how dangerous an unknown member of the human species can be.

Duly noted that if this guy was throwing punches instead of backing away that this guy could have been reasonably afraid of imminent harm or death.

I think what happened is tragic and doubly tragic that a guy died in front of his son for no apparent good reason. But I've read the article and watched the video and think you guys are reaching judgment based on the previously unknown knowledge that the guy has caused trouble in that parking lot before. Here's what the article states:

A woman who apparently was not handicapped parked in a handicapped spot. That's the first thing wrong. A guy objected and said something and she must have felt righteous enough to park there without a handicap placard because an argument ensued.

Her boyfriend comes out and sees the argument and it appears he makes no attempt to diffuse it. Instead, he almost immediately approaches the guy and shoves him violently into the ground. That's the second wrong. I'm not sure where you're getting that he backed off. I saw the video and he only backed off after he saw the guy had a gun.

Now after the fact, we learn that the shooter had a known history of starting trouble in the parking lot and was probably looking for trouble. But that can't be taken into account before it was known! All anyone could know at the time is that a woman parked in a handicapped when she shouldn't have and her boyfriend came out and immediately and violently shoved the guy to the ground because he was arguing with his girlfriend. This was also wrong.

I'm basically just trying to make a lame public service announcement. Don't start physical altercations that aren't necessary. The woman could've said gee, sorry I shouldn't have parked there. And her boyfriend could've said, c'mon dude chill it was just a mistake. But instead, she righteously argued when she appears to be in the wrong, and the boyfriend's first move was to come out and immediately violently shove a complete stranger to the ground without making any attempt to diffuse the situation. I tend to have little sympathy for people who start physical altercations only to get more than what they bargained for. There's an easy remedy to that. Don't start fights!

"They say I'm crazy but I have a have a good time."

the guy pushed him and then backed up. i don't see how it is possible SYG. this is like 10 times worse than Zimmerman.

We must be watching a different video. The guy pushes him down and keeps walking towards him. He even adjusts his pants like he's getting ready to fight. He only stops and backs up after the guy on the ground raises to a sitting position and reaches back to pull out the gun.

And worse than Zimmerman? You must be joking or living in an alternate reality. Zimmerman followed around a harmless teenager for blocks who not only wasn't armed, but wasn't doing a goddamn thing wrong other than WALKING home! Zimmerman was the predator and you can make a real strong case it was racially motivated. These two aren't incidents aren't even close.

At those ****ty, old convenience stores like this place was people park in handicapped spots all the time. It’s not a thing that is or should be policed, especially by random people, unless you are a racist looking to take out your frustrations on some random minority woman.

There seems to be a lot of "what ifs" in this post. You basically have a range of possibilities, take the most extreme set of them and then say the person's actions are justified by acting if those possibilities are likely true.

Now as an individual one might be justified by doing that but as a society we know these kinds of pushing matches, petty fights and arguments happen all the time, all over the world, but there's only one country in the world that allows the participants to escalate to death when the mostly likely outcome is some pushes, shoves, maybe someone does get hurt, but not in a deadly way.

It also allows someone likes to instigate fights to quickly end them like Zimmerman and this guy.

Lestat,

Ignoring the whole backstory

The shover was several feet away from the shooter when the gun was brandished, the shover was not advancing quickly, and the shover immediately retreated when he saw the gun.

The shooting was not defensive. Brandishing could have been defensive, but the shooting wasn't.

Also, trip report on getting shot?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...rnd/index.html

The father of two Parkland school shooting survivors is shot and killed during a robbery

Lestat briefly tried to get woke with focusing on anti-Trump **** but at the end of the day he is what he is

I mean this **** is just comical at this rate, but y'all are going to be COMPLETELY UNSURPISED by what comes next in this post:
This was in a thread about how Zimmerman should get his ****ing gun back. Elsewhere Lestat's ***** ass was whining about how Zimmerman, even though found not guilty, was still being punished by the court of public opinion.

**** these people.

The guy with the gun started the altercation and the victim could have felt his girlfriend was in danger by the guy yelling at her and was protecting her.

If you get pushed to the ground and have time to draw a gun without someone putting the boot in you aren’t in danger for your life. If after you’ve drawn your gun the person who pushed you raises his arms and backs away, you aren’t in danger. Your lack of sympathy shows your character more than it sheds any light on this tragedy.

So would you be good if he simply stood up beat the guy to death by fighting him? What don't you get about initiating violence can lead to bad consequences and you don't get to pick which ones they are? Like I said. I think it's tragic. He shouldn't have been shot. The guy could've just pulled the gun and let him go (hoping he wouldn't go to his car and get his own gun). But the other guy didn't have to immediately get physical. I just can't muster up much sympathy for a person who initiates an act of violence and then is surprised he got more than he bargained for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd have a problem (it might not have even made the news), if a normal fight ensued and the guy got killed by being choked to death. It's just that he used a gun that you have an issue with, right?

Clearly the woman's life or well being was not in any imminent danger. If the guy had time to come out of the store and run up to the scene, he just as easily could've tried to find out what was going on and diffuse the situation using words. He couldn't have even known what the argument was about and if he did maybe he'd have seen that yeah I guess it's not right to park in a handicapped spot so our bad and that would've been the end of it.

I do have sympathy. I said it's tragic and feel terrible a father died in front of his son and especially that his son will have to live with that memory forever. You guys are just making me take the devil's advocate position because I find your logic weak, biased, and tenuous at best. It's only because you already have the information that the guy was known to start fights and that a gun was involved that you side completely with the guy who was shot here. You completely ignore that you shouldn't park in a handicapped spot if you're not handicapped. And you shouldn't be the first one to initiate physical violence. You have no idea what the woman said to the guy after he informed her she shouldn't park there. You also have no idea what would've happened if instead of shoving the guy to the ground being his first action, he took the time to find out what was going on and talked it out.

Yeah well, I've completely changed my tune and position since I wrote that piece of bull**** so do you have anything relevant to say about this?

the victim was retreating when he was shot, lestat

it doesn't matter that the driver ignored the handicap parking sign or may have been yelling at the dude just shoved to the ground

A situation that may begin as "mutual combat" is not a free pass to beat your adversary to death. People who win such fights often end up in prison for Manslaughter.

Are you really this dense?

Yeah, I already did. No **** you don't see THIS one as racial and ran here to defend murdering unarmed black people on general principle:
You always do the exact same ****, because you believe that black people who start a fistfight deserve to die.

Also kinda interesting that you know two people who have killed someone in street fights under entirely different circumstances that you recalled just one of them, just at the time you needed to lecture the ****** lovers about what happens if you get handsy.

Unless... wait... are you full of ****? On this, on everything, because you're ****ing unable to just own your own beliefs?

For ****'s sake.


Typical anti-Trump lib here just guessing, in good faith discourse, that libs upset about a man getting ****ing killed over a shove must be doing anti-gun hysterics.

There's just different levels of wrong that don't justify each other.

Parking in a disabled spot is wrong. it doesn't justify violence. The violence is wrong it doesn't in justify the shooting because the conditions of reasonable force weren't met. The only think we can say along these lines it is that they increase the risk of an unjustified response. The worst act by far is the shooting and, given that people do unjustified **** a lot, the risk is best removed by removing the guns.

The racist bit comes in from the correct rule being about reasonable force combined with the racist bias of being more fearful of black people. Maybe the shooter would have shot anyone but commonly fear plays a huge role.

LESTAT,

Proportional response is a real thing that laws in normal states actually account for. In fact there is a book I read back in my gun curiosity days written by an expert in gun based self defense that stated the onus is on the person with the weapon to do everything in their power to deescalate the situation and not meet a shove with with a disproportionate response (shooting the shover.)

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Lestat should apply the logic he is currently applying about the assumption of risks that come with "pushing a stranger" to "being a reprehensible bootlicking fascist" lol

If someone hits your car, can you be sure it was an accident? Was it on purpose? Are they trying to kidnap you? Best to unload a barrage of bullets into their car to prevent the worst case from happening.

Does not compute