Had he kept his mouth shut there was nothing to protect himself against. He doesn't like loud music? Tough shit. Had he said something to me in a similar situation I would have told him to fuck off. Then what, he pulls a gun on me? He best gun my ass down in a blink, cause if he doesn's he's in for some shit. Assholes like him need their f'n teeth kicked in.
Another Floridian just standing his ground
- Thread starter hughb
- Start date
Had he kept his mouth shut there was nothing to protect himself against. He doesn't like loud music? Tough shit. Had he said something to me in a similar situation I would have told him to fuck off. Then what, he pulls a gun on me? He best gun my ass down in a blink, cause if he doesn's he's in for some shit. Assholes like him need their f'n teeth kicked in.
Actually I 'd say it's stupid fuckers like you who can't or refuse to read that need "their f'n teeth kicked in."
Sounds like self defense to me, esp if outnumbered 5-6/1.
PT is the archetypal winger, the country knows this, and until you see it as well, every time the GOP bus crashes because wingers were driving it, you will be on that bus.
In most states the shooter cannot be responsible in any way for the intiating the conflict that led to a shooting. IOW you can't start an altercation then shoot claiming self defense.
Seems to me this case boils down to:
1) did the shooter in any way help instigate the confrontation?
2) can it be proved any of the teens were armed AND the shooter knew this?
IF the shooter didn't instigate the confrontation AND the "youths" were armed and threatening him. He could blow'em all to Hell for all I care.
IF the shooter is responsible for initiating the confrontation and fired, threatened or not. From a legal standpoint at least. He's making responsible gun owners like me look bad. They can barbecue his ass for all I care.
So you're referring to my post in response to Ricter's Krugman comment in another thread (which I stated I would start and new thread on for clarity) is comparable to your trying to attack the Stand Your Ground law, and the racial overtones you tried to bring up with the "I hear he's black" victim comment? With no more evidence than a hastily written news flash and no facts at all?
I just want to be clear on what you're comparing here. You're drawing a parallel to a thread that has charts and dozens of slides to prove an argument based on entitlement spending to your first two posts?
The only reason I need to clarify this is because I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were rather a witty and clever person given your past performances on this forum (regardless of what side of the fence you were on at the time), and that contrasts so much with the fucking jackwagon I think you're playing here.