Crazy situation
- Thread starter kaz109
- Start date
Hard to say, he did chase them down. If he was fearing for his life he would of stayed put with hand in gun ready to fire. Still trash taking out trash by the looks of it.
All depends what happened off camera when he took the first shot IMHO but I say self defense.
A. Did dumbass #1 start assaulting him before the shot, if so hes good for dumbass #1.
B. Did dumbass #1 tell him he was going to get his gun, if so it will be a hard defense by firing first.
C. Was he just worried that dumbass #2 had a gun in the suv and was being proactive by firing first, if so its murder.
Not a good look to run around the SUV to get at the driver though, that will definitely be used against him big time. If he just stayed on the passenger side and laid into them from there he would have been better off if it was indeed justified self defense.
A. Did dumbass #1 start assaulting him before the shot, if so hes good for dumbass #1.
B. Did dumbass #1 tell him he was going to get his gun, if so it will be a hard defense by firing first.
C. Was he just worried that dumbass #2 had a gun in the suv and was being proactive by firing first, if so its murder.
Not a good look to run around the SUV to get at the driver though, that will definitely be used against him big time. If he just stayed on the passenger side and laid into them from there he would have been better off if it was indeed justified self defense.
I mean, it's hard to say as some of it is off camera. Did the passenger try to hit him offscreen? Or was it shit talking? threats of violence?
Stupid of those two to come back, gotta just brush shit off as you never know how much ****s the other person has left to give.
I see it's Florida. So, some type of "stand your ground" but he was in a public place.
Stupid of those two to come back, gotta just brush shit off as you never know how much ****s the other person has left to give.
I see it's Florida. So, some type of "stand your ground" but he was in a public place.
If its anything like Ohio he has no "duty to retreat" regardless of where he is.
"play stupid games win stupid prizes."
That said, he did chase those whiteys down as they were fleeing the scene and he had his gun hidden under the sweatshirt in his hand as he was shooting at them... Probably murder.
Not an attorney though I do frequently stay at the Holiday Inn Express.
That said, he did chase those whiteys down as they were fleeing the scene and he had his gun hidden under the sweatshirt in his hand as he was shooting at them... Probably murder.
Not an attorney though I do frequently stay at the Holiday Inn Express.
That is a hard one and there is a case for both to be made, but in a perfect world he would be acting in self-defense.
I don’t know. We didn’t see any assault.
You can claim assault if you perceive it was eminent. Balled up fists, squaring off, “I’m gonna kick your ass” is a reportable assault and you can act accordingly. If that’s all the guy did, the shooter is gonna have a long road to prove he feared for his life and had to shoot him.
Whether the passenger white guy had a lethal weapon is key.
You still have to deal with the fact that he chased him to shoot him. Once the threat stops, you have to deescalate reasonably.
Unless you believe that the person still poses a threat to life or serious bodily harm to others. Good example would be a mass shooter and you shoot him/her in the back or a nut job that’s already hurt numerous people.
This is a tough claim to make based on what I saw.
As someone else mentioned, I don’t see how you could justify the second shooting.
Add this to the CNN stats lol.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Looks like some murdering to me. The video does not show he was ever in imminent danger for his life, particularly when he ran around the other side of the SUV to pop the driver with a concealed gun.
They ****ed around and found out. Definitely took the trash out. **** them.
In regards to whether legal kill or not, its very hard to say. We dont have full context. Based on just the video. Looks to me like it was not ”legally” justified. I did not see IMMINENT risk of death or severe bodily injury.
With that said, with full context it could have definitely been justified. Based on those bitches actions alone, in my eyes, it was a sweet double kill.
In regards to whether legal kill or not, its very hard to say. We dont have full context. Based on just the video. Looks to me like it was not ”legally” justified. I did not see IMMINENT risk of death or severe bodily injury.
With that said, with full context it could have definitely been justified. Based on those bitches actions alone, in my eyes, it was a sweet double kill.
The guy knew he had a gun without even seeing it, or he did see it because the guy flashed it at some point. Either way, he knew he had a gun and that means the guy divulged it which then leads to threat of a violent/deadly confrontation. That's what I'm taking into consideration for his defense.
Just another reason I do as much as possible to interact with people as little as possible.
Can rules for looting be applied?
When BLM wears a surgical mask and balaclava while relieving a store of inventory we see it as criminal looting. However, we can all agree that if he/she is bare-headed it transforms the act from theft into reparations and therefore no crime committed.
So here, no face cover. Shooter didn't murder the victims; he simply repaired them.
Case dismissed.
When BLM wears a surgical mask and balaclava while relieving a store of inventory we see it as criminal looting. However, we can all agree that if he/she is bare-headed it transforms the act from theft into reparations and therefore no crime committed.
So here, no face cover. Shooter didn't murder the victims; he simply repaired them.
Case dismissed.
So stand your ground law. Does that mean you can chase him down and pop him? Would think not.
That would def change things. I missed the part about the gun.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
As far as I know the right to self defense no matter how red your state doesn't give us the right to go on the offensive and just kill everyone. It does give us the right to defend ourselves by stopping the threat.
First kill seems justified, the 2nd I have mixed emotions.
Part of me see's the offender as retreating and a good time to put distance between the two of you, and thus ending the engagement.
Going up to the window and shooting him is a very aggressive move.
The only time I can see that as a viable reaction is situations like if there were children or others around that could easily get caught in a crossfire or run over, I could still see that as a reasonable (but ballsy) way to stop the threat. Or if the guy that retreated to the car sated something to the fact " I'm going to grab my Glock, you'll be sorry.." Instead of screaming and trying to get the hell out of Dodge.
But being by yourself and armed with cover after taking out his friend and the last assailant appears to be retreating might be really pushing the faith of the law, I think it's really stretching it.
Ultimately it will be up to a jury, and depending on the pool the only way he gets out of murder if charged, is if they overcharge him with murder because they get a very sympathetic jury member to nullify it. Everything below Murder 1 to Manslaughter should easily stick if the prosecutor is worth their salt.
First kill seems justified, the 2nd I have mixed emotions.
Part of me see's the offender as retreating and a good time to put distance between the two of you, and thus ending the engagement.
Going up to the window and shooting him is a very aggressive move.
The only time I can see that as a viable reaction is situations like if there were children or others around that could easily get caught in a crossfire or run over, I could still see that as a reasonable (but ballsy) way to stop the threat. Or if the guy that retreated to the car sated something to the fact " I'm going to grab my Glock, you'll be sorry.." Instead of screaming and trying to get the hell out of Dodge.
But being by yourself and armed with cover after taking out his friend and the last assailant appears to be retreating might be really pushing the faith of the law, I think it's really stretching it.
Ultimately it will be up to a jury, and depending on the pool the only way he gets out of murder if charged, is if they overcharge him with murder because they get a very sympathetic jury member to nullify it. Everything below Murder 1 to Manslaughter should easily stick if the prosecutor is worth their salt.
Last edited:
Is it self defence if you chase after someone who's unarmed? Ghetto trash will kill each other for the stupidest stuff. Probably trash "disrespected" the other trash. Add this to the list on the other thread.
I had to read that a few times to fully understand what you were saying. Your post sounds like the guy is going to pound YOU in the ass in prison haha.
Users who are viewing this thread
