The victim was "involved" because it was his girlfriend being threatened by the shooter.
If I missed it I'll freely admit such but I didn't see either article nor video(s) mention threats.
The victim was "involved" because it was his girlfriend being threatened by the shooter.
I agree. As soon as he brandished the gun, the other guy backed away. At that point he no longer had the right to fire imo.
If I missed it I'll freely admit such but I didn't see either article nor video(s) mention threats.
So you went from the victim was not involved to there was no mention about any threats?
If you watch the video, they say the shooter picked a fight with the victims girlfriend and it got so heated that a bystander went into the store and reported it. Also in the video, there was another gentlemen interviewed that had a similar run in with the shooter over the handicap parking spot and stated that the guy threatened to shoot him.
Bingo. Can't shoot someone who is retreating, even if they were the initial aggressor. That's a manslaughter charge.
You said the shooter threatened the driver. The boyfriend or husband or whatever he was considered was inside the store independent of the situation between the driver and the future shooter.
What threats were made?
I do not know what specific threats were being made, I was not there. But if you think the shooter was politely asking her to move her car when the boyfriend gave the shooter a textbook Gordie Howe cross check, then you are turning a blind eye to the facts.
Bad decision to push the guy down like that. I don't agree he had the right to shoot him for it. He should just get in the car and leave. It's not smart to push or hit someone because he is talking trash.
Sent from my SM-G935V using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Being a dick doesn't mean the law doesn't protect you. I will say by the time law enforcement and the survivors lawyers finish up with him, he will wish he never pulled the trigger.