Not having a weapon does not mean that one is not a threat. And as was stated previously, the armed individuals in this story are neither being supported nor sided with. It is merely being questioned why the individual who was unarmed continued to act in a hostile, belligerent manner even once the firearms were visible and trained on him. If it is simply not possible for yourself to differentiate between the two standards, such is a problem with yourself, not myself.
Of course YOU would think that. My lord...one unarmed man is a threat to TWO armed chicken *****? Hahahahahaha...thank you for the laugh.
both sides should have walked away. but Stand Your Ground has enabled some idiots to act like tough guys. and people die
If such were not the case, law enforcement officers would not be justified in killing unarmed suspects by claiming they were in fear for their lives. And yet they are. Therefore a person being unarmed does not mean they are not a threat.
Then lay blame on both parties involved, not simply the side that was armed due to their being an easy target for criticism. Except for the fact that such is simply not the case. Even without stand your ground being a legal concept, idiots have acted like tough individuals for decades, if not centuries, and have eventually suffered the consequences of their actions. The law does not encourage bad behavior, nor does it encourage someone to act in a manner they would otherwise refrain from. Be serious. Is it being stated that these two individuals who were armed, appear to be intelligent enough to refrain from such behavior under normal circumstances?
Oh please...two guys with guns against one with no gun. A guy with no gun is only a threat to a chicken ****
Well, there’s nothing to say republicans wouldn’t all vote agaisnt it. After all, they have no problems with people on a terrorist watch list and those suffering from dementia passing back ground checks.
Oh I agree but that reminds me of a very good debate years ago between Pete Shields of what is now the Brady Gun control group and a guy who later became an editor for National Review. The gentleman, an African American conservative at Yale was questioning Shield's claim that gun bans would be effective. He noted to Shields-circa 1980-that most murders in New Haven and other cities on the east coast and west coast (Shields became a gun banner after his son was murdered by the black "zebra killer" in California). were committed by young blacks-like the debater-and wouldn't it make more sense to lock up or at least strictly supervise black urban males for the 15 years they are most likely to commit crimes. Shields was outraged-he said-BUT THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL-and Mr. Brooks noted "Well if you are going to F--- with the Constitution you might as well F--- it up in a way that actually does something to stop crime
And that alone is a problem that many on either side of the debate tend to not acknowledge. Logic and precedents. Many are attempting to combat what they view as a problem by removing the tools they consider to be dangerous all in the supposed effort to "save lives". If actually saving lives were the real issue than we need to address other aspects of society. Allowing teenagers to drive vehicles is statistically more dangerous to society than allowing me to drive a car. Same with allowing the elderly to drive cars. An elderly person or a teenager is statistically more likely to harm themselves and/or others when operating a motor vehicle than I am. But there is no ongoing debate about such a "danger" to society. Hell based on pure statistics I am statistically more dangerous of a human being than anyone else in society. I am more likely to commit a violent crime in America than "you" are. I am a black male who was raised in a single parent household. Based on pure statistics I am the most dangerous type of citizen living in the United States. Am I a criminal? No, I'm a decorated Officer in the US military, but statistically speaking I am more dangerous to society than my white neighbor living next door with his wife and 3 children. So why not ban me? Or at least regulate me? Why should law enforcement not keep a special eye on me based on my history? As you mentioned if we are going to pick and choose which parts of our Constitution to uphold then lets do it. Many have no problem simply tossing out the 2nd Amendment in a fight to "save lives" so lets toss out the 14th Amendment as well. Tossing out the 14th Amendment would save more lives than tossing out the 2nd so lets get to it. The only thing more "dangerous" to our society than the 2nd Amendment is coupling the 2nd Amendment with the 14th Amendment which allows this single parent raised black male to walk around society with a legally owned gun which I am statistically more likely to kill somebody with than anybody else living here in our country. Therein lies the problem. Our Constitution is law and the law by which our nation was founded and currently exists. You don't get to just dismiss the parts of it you don't like. And if you are willing to just dismiss parts of it then you must also be willing to dismiss other parts of it as well. Want to actually save lives? Fight the 14th Amendment and get rid of me. I'm statistically more dangerous to our nation than gun owners are. But those in favor of screwing with the Constitution for specific agendas don't use that logic. It's apparently only ok to dismiss the US Constitution when it's something they personally agree with.
Four law enforcement officers, all with firearms, proving unable to overpower and subdue a single suspect. Apparently they all qualify as being so-called "chicken ****" individuals according to the criteria set forth by yourself.
The guy in the OP who was shot was not on PCP. As is the case 99.999999% of the time. Nice cherrypicking. If the guy in the OP was being physically violent like in your cherrypicked video then they would have been justified shooting. Such was not the case though. So these two did act as chicken *****
People on a terror watch list shouldn't be in the country in the first place, and they're unconstitutional. That you don't understand the dangers of a "list" you can be put on without due process tells me how much you understand, or care, about due process.
Then do not make general, all-encompassing statements about how individuals who do not have a weapon in their possession do not amount to being a threat. Choose the words utilized by yourself more carefully, or they will be used against yourself when the opportunity presents itself. And they will be prosecuted for their actions. So what exactly is being complained about by yourself?
Oh please...someone on PCP is beyond a rarity. You know this. Stop being disingenuous. That guy was no threat therefore no need to shoot.
Show where anyone present, anyone at all, has actually suggested otherwise. Show who present has defended the actions of the two who have been arrested and charged, and called their actions justified.
You do realize I never claimed anyone defended their actions, right? Stop trying to move the goalposts...it exposes you.
Then stop with the constant, repetitive repeating of "chicken ****" whenever an unarmed individual is shot, as if it adds anything of relevance to the discussion. It does not. It does nothing more than show contempt for those that do not wish to engage in a fistfight when confronted by the prospect of violence, relying on outdated notions of manliness and honor, in a world fill with individuals who will not hesitate to murder you for no reason other than having the wrong attitude when addressing someone.
Seems I’ve struck a nerve. And don’t ever tell me what to do. I will post whatever the hell I want. We clear?
Hasty generalization fallacy. A few dorks don't equal justification for collective punishment of millions, and that's the core argument you're making here. Further, it's inappropriate to conflate frequently illegal possession of a firearm with should-be policy recommendations for people who lawfully possess them.
Why not? We used to. Gun Clubs at School: Not so long ago, they were common — and safe. Once upon a time, it was common for an American child to be packed off to school with a rifle on his back and for him to come home smiling and safe in the evening. Shooting clubs, now quietly withering away, were once such a mainstay of American high-school life that in the first half of the 20th century they were regularly installed in the basements of new educational buildings. Now, they are in their death throes, victims of political correctness, a willful misunderstanding of what constitutes “gun safety,” and our deplorable tendency toward litigiousness. In 1975, New York state had over 80 school districts with rifle teams. In 1984, that had dropped to 65. By 1999 there were just 26. The state’s annual riflery championship was shut down in 1986 for lack of demand. This, sadly, is a familiar story across the country. The clubs are fading from memory, too. A Chicago Tribune report from 2007 notes the astonishment of a Wisconsin mother who discovered that her children’s school had a range on site.
Depends on the situation. Michael Brown reached into Officer Wilson's car, grabbed his gun, and tried to turn it into Wilson's abdomen and shoot him with it. There have been numerous such cases, be it civilians or law enforcement. Recently, a jail inmate killed a couple corrections officers after he was able to grab the gun of one of the officers. To say a person without a gun can't be a threat is to deny reality.
Well said, but it will fall on deaf eyes. Using statistics against you would be "racist", and they'd lose their left wing support if they tried that. It's guns they hate, pure and simple, regardless of who owns them. It doesn't matter if statistically Black males are more dangerous - to them, anyone with a gun represents an acceptable danger to society. Thanks for your service. If you were a Marine, get a civilian buddy to tell you what the big words mean (Army officer, 86-90)
Apples and oranges. Being taken by surprise is so different than guns already drawn and at the ready to shoot. The guys in the OP had their guns at the ready...that’s two guns at the ready against a guy with no gun who was with his wife and kids. Not even comparable.
