I know. They should have just let them beat their white asses. After all, that white lady did bump into her...
First of all, if they had violent intentions, don't you think they would've been swinging? It's not like they didn't have a shouting match for at least a few minutes. You're acting like they never got the chance to fight, when that's blatantly false.
And I'm not saying they don't have a right to defend themselves; I'm saying that there's nothing but words in this video. You can't fucking shoot someone over mean words, and I don't get why that's a hard concept for you.
We have no idea what happened to make this cool and collected lady pull a gun.
Actually we have a pretty fucking good idea, considering it's on video.
But the camera bouncing around like that makes me think they were bum rushing the car.
So you think the best response to someone attacking your car is to... get out of the car? Not, drive off like any reasonable person? Not even draw your weapon from within the car; You're saying that removing the only thing separating you from the other person is the best course of action for self perseverance? Could you explain your logic on that one to me?
At what point is the pulling of the gun justified?
It's pretty fucking simple and established law, with slight variances from state to state. You can use deadly force (example: A firearm) in self defense when a reasonable person has fear of death or severe bodily harm. Fat women screaming some insults at you is NOT justification for killing someone, no matter how stupid they are.
How do you know they were unarmed? Because there was not a gunfight?
A better question is what are their intentions. They had many opportunities to physically attack the white couple, but they didn't do anything but shout like spoiled and naive brats. That doesn't guarantee that they won't attack later, but that's beside the point. The white couple as self defenders should be looking do deescalate and evade conflicts. Leaving the only barrier between you and the attacking party is not what any logical individual would do if they are interested in self defense. This is clearly an ego battle, and any idiot can tell that. Absolutely anyone who knows even the most fundamental basics of self defense will tell you this.
The most valuable tool they have is their car, and they were able to enter it without any issue. If they truly felt threatened, their best course of action is to drive away. It's not a hard concept. It doesn't matter if they're standing in front of the car; Run them over. I promise you that action would be easier to defend in court rather than actively choosing to remove barriers of protection and willingly confront the threat when there is an option to leave.
It'd be different if they were threatening them. It'd be different if they were trying to swing at them. It'd be different if she drew before she got into the car for the first time. But that isn't the circumstance that we have, is it? She willingly had an ego battle, and there's no denying that.
Does it make a difference to you that the white lady is pregnant?
ONLY if she had drawn BEFORE entering the car, and I'll explain why (instead of just screaming, "nuh uh im right ur rong"). The shouting match here can be a pre attack indicator for violence, however this is highly circumstantial. As the incident moved towards the car, the distance between both parties became narrower. Now, if they were rapidly charging the pregnant lady, empty handed skills are the best course of action as it simply takes too long to draw a firearm, and it becomes an increased risk when they are in range to grab it. However, they didn't charge at her, but merely walked closer in an intimidating fashion. In order for her to enter her car, she has to position her body in such a way that puts her at an increased risk of a physical attack. If she reasonably felt threatened at that moment, it could be justifiable to draw as she enters the vehicle, and to keep the weapon drawn from within the protection of the car as they drive away.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that if you truly felt that your life was at risk from these people that you'd EXIT YOUR FUCKING VEHICLE TO CONTINUE SHOUTING AT THEM. This logic works both ways, too. The blacks in this video clearly don't believe that this woman is a racist, violent person who wants to kill all blacks, or they wouldn't have continued to shout at her as she pointed a weapon towards them. If you truly think your enemy wants you dead, you wouldn't be provoking them as they point a weapon towards you.
It's amazing to me as to how little you must understand about self defense and the related legislation to try to act as if I'm saying they should've let themselves get hurt here. You are ignorant of this topic (not an insult, I am stating things bluntly. Not meant to belittle you, not meant to be an attack on you, etc etc etc. I am speaking bluntly here.), and yet you still feel as if your opinion is valid. A non-doctor doesn't go around telling surgeons that they're doing their job wrong. A non-engineer doesn't go around telling engineers that their designs will/won't work. So why do you think that your uninformed opinion on self defense practice, legislation, etc is valid?
There are a lot of words here, you should sum up your statements better: I won’t read them all because a pregnant woman was threatened with bodily harm, car attacked and blocked from retreating. I’m on the jury where that lady pulled the trigger- I’d vote justifiable homicide.
There are a lot of words here, you should sum up your statements better: I won’t read them all
I responded precisely and accurately to argue my point and address your questions. Your refusal to read them is not my fault; Don't try to imply that it is.
I'm trying to have an honest discussion here, and clearly you are not.
because a pregnant woman was threatened with bodily harm,
No she wasn't.
car attacked
No it wasn't.
and blocked from retreating.
Run them over if you fear for your life. The only possible situation where exiting the vehicle is beneficial to one's goals is if your goals revolve around an ego fight.
I’m on the jury where that lady pulled the trigger
She didn't
I’d vote justifiable homicide.
It's nowhere near that simple, and my comment has little to do with the jury. You'd know that if you bothered to read it.
First of all, if they had violent intentions, don't you think they would've been swinging? It's not like they didn't have a shouting match for at least a few minutes. You're acting like they never got the chance to fight, when that's blatantly false.
And I'm not saying they don't have a right to defend themselves; I'm saying that there's nothing but words in this video. You can't fucking shoot someone over mean words, and I don't get why that's a hard concept for you.
Actually we have a pretty fucking good idea, considering it's on video.
So you think the best response to someone attacking your car is to... get out of the car? Not, drive off like any reasonable person? Not even draw your weapon from within the car; You're saying that removing the only thing separating you from the other person is the best course of action for self perseverance? Could you explain your logic on that one to me?
It's pretty fucking simple and established law, with slight variances from state to state. You can use deadly force (example: A firearm) in self defense when a reasonable person has fear of death or severe bodily harm. Fat women screaming some insults at you is NOT justification for killing someone, no matter how stupid they are.
A better question is what are their intentions. They had many opportunities to physically attack the white couple, but they didn't do anything but shout like spoiled and naive brats. That doesn't guarantee that they won't attack later, but that's beside the point. The white couple as self defenders should be looking do deescalate and evade conflicts. Leaving the only barrier between you and the attacking party is not what any logical individual would do if they are interested in self defense. This is clearly an ego battle, and any idiot can tell that. Absolutely anyone who knows even the most fundamental basics of self defense will tell you this.
The most valuable tool they have is their car, and they were able to enter it without any issue. If they truly felt threatened, their best course of action is to drive away. It's not a hard concept. It doesn't matter if they're standing in front of the car; Run them over. I promise you that action would be easier to defend in court rather than actively choosing to remove barriers of protection and willingly confront the threat when there is an option to leave.
It'd be different if they were threatening them. It'd be different if they were trying to swing at them. It'd be different if she drew before she got into the car for the first time. But that isn't the circumstance that we have, is it? She willingly had an ego battle, and there's no denying that.
ONLY if she had drawn BEFORE entering the car, and I'll explain why (instead of just screaming, "nuh uh im right ur rong"). The shouting match here can be a pre attack indicator for violence, however this is highly circumstantial. As the incident moved towards the car, the distance between both parties became narrower. Now, if they were rapidly charging the pregnant lady, empty handed skills are the best course of action as it simply takes too long to draw a firearm, and it becomes an increased risk when they are in range to grab it. However, they didn't charge at her, but merely walked closer in an intimidating fashion. In order for her to enter her car, she has to position her body in such a way that puts her at an increased risk of a physical attack. If she reasonably felt threatened at that moment, it could be justifiable to draw as she enters the vehicle, and to keep the weapon drawn from within the protection of the car as they drive away.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that if you truly felt that your life was at risk from these people that you'd EXIT YOUR FUCKING VEHICLE TO CONTINUE SHOUTING AT THEM. This logic works both ways, too. The blacks in this video clearly don't believe that this woman is a racist, violent person who wants to kill all blacks, or they wouldn't have continued to shout at her as she pointed a weapon towards them. If you truly think your enemy wants you dead, you wouldn't be provoking them as they point a weapon towards you.
It's amazing to me as to how little you must understand about self defense and the related legislation to try to act as if I'm saying they should've let themselves get hurt here. You are ignorant of this topic (not an insult, I am stating things bluntly. Not meant to belittle you, not meant to be an attack on you, etc etc etc. I am speaking bluntly here.), and yet you still feel as if your opinion is valid. A non-doctor doesn't go around telling surgeons that they're doing their job wrong. A non-engineer doesn't go around telling engineers that their designs will/won't work. So why do you think that your uninformed opinion on self defense practice, legislation, etc is valid?
There are a lot of words here, you should sum up your statements better: I won’t read them all because a pregnant woman was threatened with bodily harm, car attacked and blocked from retreating. I’m on the jury where that lady pulled the trigger- I’d vote justifiable homicide.
I responded precisely and accurately to argue my point and address your questions. Your refusal to read them is not my fault; Don't try to imply that it is.
I'm trying to have an honest discussion here, and clearly you are not.
No she wasn't.
No it wasn't.
Run them over if you fear for your life. The only possible situation where exiting the vehicle is beneficial to one's goals is if your goals revolve around an ego fight.
She didn't
It's nowhere near that simple, and my comment has little to do with the jury. You'd know that if you bothered to read it.