• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58:339]

Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

apdst said:
That doesn't justify deadly force. Obviously you are ignorant of the law and/or you haven't absorbed a damn thing anyone has tried to teach you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for making my point that no lethal force was Justified.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

danielpalos said:
Thanks for making my point that no lethal force was Justified.
Click to expand...

In one ear and out the other. :lamo
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

apdst said:
In one ear and out the other. :lamo
Click to expand...

The Armed gunman was willing to just yell at a woman but deploy a weapon of microdestrution on a man, simply because a gun ensures superiority.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

danielpalos said:
The Armed gunman was willing to just yell at a woman but deploy a weapon of microdestrution on a man, simply because a gun ensures superiority.
Click to expand...

He deployed his weapon because he was being physically attacked.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

apdst said:
He deployed his weapon because he was being physically attacked.
Click to expand...

No, he wasn't. He had been physically assaulted but no followup occurred. The guy was simply defending his family, not intending to do any more harm. The gunman let his emotions get the better of him, and he had a gun.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

danielpalos said:
No, he wasn't. He had been physically assaulted but no followup occurred. The guy was simply defending his family, not intending to do any more harm. The gunman let his emotions get the better of him, and he had a gun.
Click to expand...

McGlockton was pressing the attack, until he was shot.

McGlockton escalated the encounter. Drejka defended himself.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

apdst said:
McGlockton was pressing the attack, until he was shot.

McGlockton escalated the encounter. Drejka defended himself.
Click to expand...

pure fantasy; if McGlockton was pressing the attack, how did the gunman have any opportunity to fire the weapon?

That is a reason to Press an Attack.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

danielpalos said:
Yes, it is. The alleged attacker was, "standing his ground" for his wife and kids. The Armed gunman had no authority to do anything more than call the police so he could cite the persons.
Click to expand...

Under Florida law the shooter was not compelled to retreat, and he is/was allowed to defend himself with deadly force. There would have been no incident at all had the attacker not parked illegally in a handicapped parking space.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

Jack Hays said:
Under Florida law the shooter was not compelled to retreat, and he is/was allowed to defend himself with deadly force. There would have been no incident at all had the attacker not parked illegally in a handicapped parking space.
Click to expand...

Next we will be killing people for littering
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

danielpalos said:
I should believe the Russians more than the right wing. The alleged attacker was defending his family from a Belligerent and Armed, gunman.
Click to expand...

The Russians? There were Russians in Florida that witnessed this event? I had no idea.

The attacker - not alleged since we saw it all on the video - committed a felony assault against a man that had only spoken words to point out what the two in that car had in fact done, illegally park in a Handicapped Parking Place. So, the attacker illegally parked, then attacked a person that verbally pointed out that they had done so. There is no reasonable way that the attacker could have known that the person they were attacking was armed. He may or may not have been belligerent. If he was being belligerent, being the focus of belligerence is not a legal excuse to commit a felony by attacking with intent to harm the person being belligerent, again, if he was being belligerent.

Being armed, is not the same as a "gunman" and using that term in this instance is intentionally hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

Jack Hays said:
Under Florida law the shooter was not compelled to retreat, and he is/was allowed to defend himself with deadly force. There would have been no incident at all had the attacker not parked illegally in a handicapped parking space.
Click to expand...

defend himself from what? the shooter was not an authorized parking enforcement posse member or parking regulator.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

Beaudreaux said:
The Russians? There were Russians in Florida that witnessed this event? I had no idea.

The attacker - not alleged since we saw it all on the video - committed a felony assault against a man that had only spoken words to point out what the two in that car had in fact done, illegally park in a Handicapped Parking Place. So, the attacker illegally parked, then attacked a person that verbally pointed out that they had done so. There is no reasonable way that the attacker could have known that the person they were attacking was armed. He may or may not have been belligerent. If he was being belligerent, being the focus of belligerence is not a legal excuse to commit a felony by attacking with intent to harm the person being belligerent, again, if he was being belligerent.

Being armed, is not the same as a "gunman" and using that term in this instance is intentionally hyperbolic and intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

The unarmed guy shoved the gunman away from his family. The gunman fell to the ground. The unarmed guy had no further intentions upon the shooter or why not keep up the attack until the shooter is no longer any form of threat.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

danielpalos said:
The unarmed guy shoved the gunman away from his family. The gunman fell to the ground. The unarmed guy had no further intentions upon the shooter or why not keep up the attack until the shooter is no longer any form of threat.
Click to expand...

That is such a stretch that it would reach to Boston from Miami.
 
Re: Don’t defend the cowards who abuse the Second Amendment[W:58]

danielpalos said:
Willfully shooting an unarmed person is usually a felony.
Click to expand...

Once again you are wrong and why do you make legal statements when its obvious you really don't understand the law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom