Perhaps it was this one...
(It looks great on my rear window!)
Posted on 12/27/2012 3:21:34 PM PST by Ron H.
News video about armed altercation between Obama supporter and anti-Obama veteran opposer.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
When the initial aggressor said to the other that “people like you should be shot..” he was making a threat.
I would acquit the bumper sticker owner .
Yes, we are in agreement. The problem comes in where the state prosecutor wants to quible over the question of whether or not Williams was obligated to see Rodriguez actually threatening Williams with a firearm, knifee, or other deadly weapon. The problem with that limitation upon Williams’ right to self defense is that Williams had no way of knowing whether or not Rodriguez was unarmed and/or Rodriguez was setting Williams up for an attack by associates approaching Willimas from behind. By the time any of this could be determined by Williams, he could already have been killedd or suffered grievous bodily harm. Holding the immediate assailant at gunpoint allowed Williams to stop that assault and prepare for any further moves by Rodriquez and/or any accomplices Rodrriguez could have had.
I agree. But when the defense lawyer learns that I'm very pro 2nd Amendment or anti-criminal I don't even get close to making onto the jury. Darn my luck.
Absolutely my FRiend. Repeal the 1934 NFA and everything since. "shall not be infringed" means just that. What other right requires a license? I don't need to register or pay a special tax to pray or attend church or to voice my opinion.
If this BS continues, though, expect that may just happen.
No, the younger guy is the one with the anti-Obama sticker, who was approached by the older guy.
Perhaps it was this one...
(It looks great on my rear window!)
Unless you're a white hispanic being pummeled by an even more protected minority.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Requiring a permit to own a Weapon is the same as requiring a Permit to send a Letter to the Editor.
The rule of proportional force takes account of situations like Zimmerman and the 90 year old lady. Lethal threat can be whatever might present a particular victim with a legitimate expectation of serious bodily harm or death. But an older man getting fiesty with a younger man, but no realistic prospect of serious harm, will not be seen as sufficient agression to justify the younger man pulling a gun. These are old rules. Proportional force goes way back into the common law. If you are the first person to raise a lethal threat, you lose. Period.
Gun advocates and owners (and I am both) must use restraint and discretion. It’s the difference between the foolish martial artist who is anxious to beat someone up just because he can, versus the wise martial artist who wouldn’t harm a fly unless there were no other options.
Seek peace with everyone. Only use lethal force as the last possible resort. But if you do have to shoot that home invader, the first thing you should say when the police arrive is, “I was in fear for my life,” assuming of course you really were. Make a point of it. Your lawyer will thank you.
“Rodriguez (pro-Obama) told police that he wasn’t interested in discussing politics and told Williams (anti-obama), “People like you should be shot,” according to police.”
So Rodriquez admitted to police he said that before the scuffle. Then the scuffle, and perhaps it looked like he was reaching for a weapon and Williams pulled his gun. Seems a case of “rather be tried by 12 than shot”.
Of course this situation is far different than an intruder in one’s home, but here in Washington state, the presence of an intruder in your home is enough to shoot him.
“If you are the first person to raise a lethal threat, you lose. Period.”
Ok, then how do you defend yourself against the knockout game.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2945577/posts
According to your theory no one is allowed to defend their
self until after they are attacked. That’s B/S. I’ve had
cops pull their gun out when approaching my vehicle at night
for not signaling a right turn. I was a perceived threat
and so was the old man in the article. And just because
a person is old doesn’t mean they can’t cause bodily harm.
If you are the first person to raise an act of aggression you lose. That’s common sense. At least in Texas anyway.
I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say but I
believe it fly’s in the face of “stand your ground” laws.
My theory is that the old guy smarted off about the young
guys bumper sticker and an argument ensued. Whether baited
into or not the old guy probably threatened the younger guy
with some form of bodily harm, making himself a perceived
threat and out comes the heat. On the other hand the young
guy could be the “foolish martial artist” with his first
gun. Sill a good defense can be made on the grounds of a
perceived threat of bodily harm.
Oh yea, keep your mouth shut and don’t admit to anything.
Your lawyer will thank you.
Please cite an example of a conservative chasing after a car's bumper, barking at the owner.
The victim was under assault and clearly dealing with a madman. His response was a reasonable deterrent to the assailant's irrational and aggressive behavior.
That’s the general sentiment, and one that will be carried out when they get the power to do so without resistance -
people who oppose the left’s goals “should be shot”.
They want to exterminate us. Plain and simple. Accept it and act/react accordingly.
>> They want to exterminate us. Plain and simple. Accept it and act/react accordingly.
The Left is indeed a horde of commies that wishes to destroy the Constitutional fabric of the Country.
Interesting details. And that’s why we have juries. If they could be convinced Rodriguez was making a serious, credible death threat, that improves Williams’ self defense posture. But there would be plenty the prosecutor could do to dismantle that theory. Generalized threat language, put off to the future, is common in heated arguments, and shouldn’t automatically imply a real and immediate lethal threat. Furthermore, unlike Zimmerman, the scuffle has produced no vivid images of serious bodily harm. The jury would have to have a lot more than we are getting from the reporting to know how potentially deadly this scuffle actually was. Given the current public record, Williams is still at a disadvantage with respect to proportionate force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.