secular, progressive liberals.....summed up in this video

Freedom1Man said:

Wait self-defense is legal.

An attacker is an attacker period. I care not what size they are. If I was visibly armed and someone came at me like that man did, I would have used deadly force to end the attack.

If you judge everyone by their looks then you may die from your own over-confidence. When someone goes into a rage as was demonstrated adrenalin tends to kick in and make them much much stronger than they would normally be.

I don't always care for what onus has to say or post, however I do not believe that onus was wrong, this time.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Thank god your a felon and can't own any weapons legally onus. Clearly you wouldve ended someones life when it wasn't needed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Yelling and swearing doesn't constitute a threat. Or wait is that only when the Bundy guys do it?

And use of force is supposed to be relative to the incident. You have a male smaller in stature pushes you. No shoot......

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Thank god [strike]your[/strike] you are a felon and can't own any weapons legally onus. Clearly you wouldve ended someones life when it wasn't needed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Thank god your a felon and can't own any weapons legally onus. Clearly you wouldve ended someones life when it wasn't needed.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Yea I could see how much of a threat he was... like when he pushed the other guy and the guy didn't even move... what sealed it was when the other guy shoved him to the ground like he was a little kid.

I'd recommend you guys take a class or two on awlf defense laws. Things like a reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily harm.....

This guy was literally holding the kid back with one hand. Also as already noted there were several (looked maybe 3? At least 2) guys with him that were intervening.

Also, what state was this? Is there a duty to retreat or stand your ground? This guy clearly wasn't even alarmed by the kid yelling.

Yelling and swearing doesn't constitute a threat. Or wait is that only when the Bundy guys do it?

And use of force is supposed to be relative to the incident. You have a male smaller in stature pushes you. No shoot......

No weapons not even any strikes to the face. A reasonable person could see from this video that there would be no imminent risk of bodily harm or death.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

I don't believe in that crap. I grew up in rough neighborhoods had the crap beat out me by smaller guys and have one fights against bigger guys. Size is only a small factor in self defense.

Click to expand...

Jeff. State said:

Everything Primus said in what you quoted from him is NEVER applied in LEO use of force incidents. Perception, and feeeeelings of physical jeopardy are all that is need in a "good shoot".


Double standard is alive and well.

Click to expand...

JamesCanby said:

<snip>

No, we are trained and educated to know when deadly force is justified. Nothing in the video showed evidence of the kid exercising a deadly force threat or being capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Did you see how "Mike" was able to pick him up and literally throw him yards away? Where was the threat of deadly force that justified killing him?

You are not helping the cause with your irrational statements. You are just making us look as bad as the antis say we are...

Click to expand...

Justification generally.

RSMo 563.026. 1. Unless inconsistent with other provisions of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute any crime other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged.

2. The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection 1 may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this section is offered, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification.

3. The defense of justification under this section is an affirmative defense.

Click to expand...

Jeff. State said:

Everything Primus said in what you quoted from him is NEVER applied in LEO use of force incidents. Perception, and feeeeelings of physical jeopardy are all that is need in a "good shoot".


Double standard is alive and well.

Click to expand...

Freedom1Man said:

I think your buttons are broken, you should take your tablet/phone/computer/whatever it is that you're using and have it's apostrophe button fixed. Otherwise you're having some other problems that may need to be repaired.

You can type out the whole words too.

Click to expand...

JamesCanby said:

Looks like YOUR apostrophe button doesn't know where to place its symbol. ;-) "It's" is a contraction for "it is" and does not connote the possessive case.

Click to expand...

JamesCanby said:

Looks like YOUR apostrophe button doesn't know where to place its symbol. ;-) "It's" is a contraction for "it is" and does not connote the possessive case.

Click to expand...