you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The black guy attacked the White guy without provocation. He just got mad because the White guy stuck up for the girl he was sexually assaulting. I don't understand why you're playing dumb here.

Some dipshit hit on a guys fiance, and then started a fight.

Another dipshit who substituted fighting skills with a gun, pulled out the gun and shot the fight starting dipshit and killed him, right?

1st degree manslaughter, etc.

We can both agree on these details, right?

Are you suggesting it's ok to kill someone who keeps approaching your fiance, etc.

Are warning shots no longer reasonable options?

The article is from "nationaljusticeparty.com".

Where's the justice in manslaughter from an unarmed assault?

Are you really this frightened of black people?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Some dipshit hit on a guys fiance, and then started a fight.

Another dipshit who substituted fighting skills with a gun, pulled out the gun and shot the fight starting dipshit and killed him, right?

Sounds like self defense. Is he obligated to get his ass kicked by someone breaking the law and using violence? If someone tried to physically assault me or my fiance and I was armed, I would not hesitate to shoot them. Shooting someone who is physically assaulting you is well within your rights, whether they are armed or not. I couldn't care less about the skin color of any of the people involved here

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sounds like self defense. Is he obligated to get his ass kicked by someone breaking the law and using violence?

Sometimes, yes.

Shooting someone who is physically assaulting you is well within your rights, whether they are armed or not.

This is false.

Deadly force can only be legally used in a neutral setting to respond to deadly force.

Anyone who takes a conceal-carry course will learn this fact of law.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This is false.

Deadly force can only be legally used in a neutral setting to respond to deadly force.

No, this is false.

"[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."

When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.

You only need to be able to justify that you believed you were at immediate threat of great bodily harm

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.

The court apparently thought his life wasn't in serious danger, or great bodily harm.

Getting your ass kicked doesn't qualify.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, because the aggressor was black. Explain the case with the firefighter, anti-White.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I have been in [dozens] of fights

I doubt that. Why would one man have been in dozens of fights without starting at least half of them? Care to explain why you're any different from the deceased? Trying to be a bigger man by brawling more than Andrew Jackson?

It's difficult to imagine you'd say that was acceptable.

Nah, that's your misunderstanding of, and attempt at a 'gotcha' directed at, 'White supremacists', etc. Truth be told, we don't like degenerate Whites either: after all, if you're that aggressive, you should have been bagged long ago, and I'd have zero problem with any groid that does the service. On those rare occasions we invoke the words 'Master Race' (Shock! Horror!), you're evidently not part of it.

Are you suggesting it's ok to kill someone who keeps approaching your fiance, etc.

This scenario has nothing in common with the event in question. (Although I have zero problems with someone being bagged if it can be proven that he's persistently being a pest of that nature.)

Now, I doubt that any decent, moral person has any problem with some abeed getting bagged who, after sexually harassing a woman (that alone enough of an offence for many feminists and some others to want a man put to death), proceeds to throw punches for no justifiable reason. Either the former or the latter is enough moral justification for bagging someone, let alone the both of them combined.

More to the point, regarding your last line?

Why are you so protective of 'black people'?

It's because you think that criminals are the real victims; that the police are the real criminals, etc. in typical lopsided liberetardian-progressive fashion, right?

Furthermore, your attempt to bring race into the equasion is merely another attempt to advantage you in an argument with 'White supremacists'. Him being black—while drastically increasing the chance of him being a piece of shit to anyone who isn't an egalitarian low-IQ moron who lives in a fantasy world—doesn't actually mean much here. Nobody should be free of the consequences of immoral and stupid actions, whereas you're clearly implying that we view all nonwhites as guilty and all Whites as saintly, which demonstrates your lack of understanding. You think we really value the lives of Antifa Whites or White queers and trannies, for instance? Nay, it wouldn't be an understatement to say that many of us rightly view them as worse than many nonwhites: I respect Erdogan or Assad more than some Antifa crackhead obese pansexual tranny. All that 'White supremacism' really entails here is that I consider a White Antifa crackhead obese pansexual tranny to have very marginally more value than a black one, since the latter would be even more low-IQ and otherwise incompatible with civilization than the former.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I doubt that. Why would one man have been in dozens of fights without starting at least half of them? Care to explain why you're any different from the deceased?

I was in the army. We did alot of fighting. We solved our own problems
Times were different.

You are probably still a kid. I don't expect you to understand.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol. No argument, as usual. Go suck more black cock.