@MMM Sometimes I don't get you. There are clear instances in post #1585 where it looks like you "get it". But then you completely blow it with stuff like:
No. This sentiment needs to be dropped from the discussion. There's no evidence that shows that his family needed protection. Were they being threatened? Were they in danger? What facts are known that could have reasonably led a person to react instinctively?
Yes I can appreciate a father's protection instincts. But I can also appreciate the obligation to be a non-psycho and differentiate between a a threat to your family's safety, and a person saying "you can't park here"
Strawman time! Let's say a Vietnam veteran has a flashback and shoots a north vietnamese immigrant in the street. Are you gonna say "I think we can all appreciate a soldier's instinct to protect his country"
You need to stop saying shit like this too. "sentence" makes it sound like the shooter made a calculated decision about justice. You're implying that he shot this man as a retaliation for an offense, or as punishment for one.That's not death-sentence worthy activity, though.
The man was physically aggressive. He was NOT backing away (before the gun was pulled). I'll bet my house that whatever was spilling out of his mouth was not pleasant. He was acting like a deranged gorilla invoking family-protection instincts. You're on the ground. He's still coming at you. You don't know if he's armed. And you don't know if he's going to stop assaulting you. This is not the time to be weighing a judicial philosophy of whether or not a bullet is a commensurate response to a punch. You're under attack. Respond.




Reply With Quote

