Let me get this straight. A guy driving a less expensive car was afraid of getting carjacked by a guy who alone in a more expensive car and the cops believed him??
Probably not, but I am sure if you keep throwing out wildly implausible theories with no evidence, you'll get one correct eventually.
I really don't understand the overwhelming desire to make wild accusations before pretty much any verifiable facts are released.
well the sherriff cited the carjacking law as it's a form of SYG laws. while he probably didn't think he was actually getting carjacked, that law says if you're in your car and reasonably afraid you can use deadly force first before trying to leave. and it's clear that they had a road rage argument, the sheriff specifically mentioned a cut-off, and that the shooter's "motive" was that he feared for his safety and those laws give a wide latitude to use deadly force. i don't think McKnight will be able to tell us why he got out. not sure what the story is missing that we're going to get
i mean, jeebus. if you're in your car, armed, and an apparently unarmed guy knocks on your window, even if he's acting aggressively, after an "incident", how fucking hard is it to just flash your piece and go about your day - even if you're trying to be a hardass. if the guy breaks your window, flashes a firearm, whatever, then the calculus changes, but otherwise it just looks like a trigger-happy zimmerman 2.0. fucking-a, man.
some people want to kill other people and know the laws that protect them. gasser and zimmerman's actions after the fact show they knew the laws.
Of course who guns an unarmed down in cold blood has to be believed. I'm sure they'd a black guy who shot a white celebrity in the same situation.
Of course who guns an unarmed down in cold blood has to be believed. I'm sure they'd a black guy who shot a white celebrity in the same situation.
How's the shooter to determine the guy screaming in his window is armed or unarmed? Ask? Frisk him?
I'm not taking sides here but no one on this thread was there and could speak to whether the shooter was threatened or felt threatened. It's pretty clear that will be the defense here and with the standard being so subjective, it's impossible to predict what the outcome of any trial would be without more facts.
How's the shooter to determine the guy screaming in his window is armed or unarmed? Ask? Frisk him?
I'm not taking sides here but no one on this thread was there and could speak to whether the shooter was threatened or felt threatened. It's pretty clear that will be the defense here and with the standard being so subjective, it's impossible to predict what the outcome of any trial would be without more facts.
you see a gun, you're already dead or seriously injured (if the guy can shoot). Hence the reason these laws are drafted to be able to protect oneself from the threat of death or serious bodily injury. Do you know what McKnight was verbalizing to the shooter? How do you know he didn't scream "I'll f'ing kill you!" and reach behind his back or in his pocket?You cannot fucking end a life just because you are a paranoid bitch and feel "threatened" in your car where you could easily just drive away. Unless there is a reasonable threat on your life (you see a gun, your lie is threatened) then you don't take anothers life because you're a scared little cunt worried about somebody outside your car.
Completely unjustifiable and, again, a completely HORRID law. It makes no sense.