Trolling again? Or is it "still trolling"?Why do you want to see the HK sticker?
Note the word "also", it means "in addition to". So in addition to seeing it the way I want too, I see an HK sticker. It's called english, a handy skill to have.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Trolling again? Or is it "still trolling"?Why do you want to see the HK sticker?
Trolling again? Or is it "still trolling"?
Note the word "also", it means "in addition to". So in addition to seeing it the way I want too, I see an HK sticker. It's called english, a handy skill to have.
Maybe he was heading to the woods and needed fire wood?We're not talking food items here - but a deadly weapon. What does a homeless felon need with a Hatchet?
Holy Kow!Maybe I wasn’t clear enough:
What does the HK sticker mean to you in this case?
I know. Someone saw the HK sticker and felt it important enough to mention it.Holy Kow!
Carefuk where you tread on statements like this.He was trying to flee. Probably a bad shot. Got the guy on camera.
But....
What was he going to do with that hatchet?
May have saved some life or limb offing that turd.
Why do you want to see the HK sticker?
Nation of Cowards A Nation of Cowards
Seriously, we seem to be willing to lower the bar for honesty to perilously low levels to cut taxes paid for law enforcement and prisons to the point where... I run out of words.
It has to do with the standards of those that they hire. To get into Law Enforcement (and to a large degree as well, Corrections) you have to be a saint, and olympic athlete, and have a high college degree. I worked with 3 other officers who demonstrated respect, judgement, common sense and a firm sense of duty. All were raised Catholic and all failed polygraphs so they were not allowed to become police officers. I worked with some who were great athletes and had college degrees, but had no morals when you worked with them. Several of those passed polygraphs. Why the difference? Because being raised Catholic causes you to have great guilt about anything that you have done wrong. Did you ever take a pencil that didn't belong to you? If so, and raised Catholic, you probably agonized over it for a long time. The ones who had no morals and passed polygraphs tended to feel that if they took something, they deserved it. They had no memory of what they did wrong, and so had no remorse or guilt over what they had done, and flew through polygraphs.That bar lowered itself mainly due to people's lack of any type of religious background and the general disregard for other people's property. It has NOTHING to do with tax cuts or cutting or law enforcement or prisons.
For the record, what's not shown in the selective media outrage clip here is that the thief appears to have taken a swing at the store owner before getting to the door, and possibly before the store owner drew his gun.
The store owner stands in front of the door, the thief comes into the edge of the field of view, moves his body in a twisting motion, with one hand out in the field of view (the hatchet isn't in sight, but is later shown in the other hand) and the store owner seems to ward off something with his non-dominant hand while taking a big step back, reaching down/back/forward with his dominant hand (watch the shoulder movement; his shirt bunches, and his shoulder raises above his neck). Seems like his hand was at the ready until this point.
Also you can very clearly see the hatchet in the hand of the thief as he opens the door, and on the ground after he goes down. It seems pretty likely that the hatchet was in his hand for the entirety of the roughly 20 seconds of action in the 1 minute clip - it certainly is from the time his body enters the camera shot. With that said, the shopkeeper clearly holds on to the guy as he's headed out the door, by his shirt and arm.
Unfortunately it's a terrible angle and fairly low resolution.
So does that change anything in anyone's eyes? If the guy took a swing first, or was merely moving towards the shopkeeper, hatchet in hand, when the shopkeeper drew down?
View attachment 250776
View attachment 250771
View attachment 250778
View attachment 250779
View attachment 250774
View attachment 250764
View attachment 250765
View attachment 250781
View attachment 250768
View attachment 250769
This whole two-step forward-background thing is what confuses me; not legally, it's pretty clear under law in most places, but I mean conceptually.
You take a person who has a weapon and has just committed a crime. Are they stepping towards you, or away? Have they already assaulted you? Who's to say that they won't do it again, after they step away? The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior; if someone just attacked you, the fact that they're moving away from you SLIGHTLY doesn't mean they're not coming back to attack you again - the threat is continued, and anything but neutralized. Let's say somebody hits you and knocks you to the ground - like that other recent Florida case - they seem to be stepping away, a foot or two, but why? To get a knife, hatchet, bat, or gun out of their car? To regroup and catch their breath before kicking you while you're down? Would it be unreasonable in those circumstances to think that your life may be at risk, continued risk?
Take a person drawing a firearm; a step-back-quick-draw is common, and may even be seen in this video; it's certainly not a retreat or the end of a confrontation but an initiation or escalation of force. If you know the Tueller dillema (some people call this the 21 foot rule or Tueller rule) you know that a person with an edged weapon in hand can get a fairly good jump on a person with a holstered pistol even if they're not already in motion.
You are way too confident about what a jury would do, I hope for your sake you never have to face one.The perp has a deadly weapon in his hand, this is a known fact. What his intent is, only the perp knows. What the store owner is seeing is a bad guy with a deadly weapon, I don't blame him for not waiting around to see what the perp is going to do with the axe. Good shoot. No way a jury will convict, too much what ifs and doubt of perp's intent. 21' rule, were talking a 4' situation, one step towards the store owner with a swing and the store owner is potentially hit with an axe. Again, unknown what the perp's intent is upon being confronted but he's in possession of a deadly implement.
The judge denied bail probably on political BS, wonder if he's up for election or a democrat. People who do much worse are assigned bail.
I see this way more simple than trying to determine if it is a good shoot vs bad shoot. Precedent has shown again and again that any cop in that situation would not even be charged therefore this guy should not be charged. I do not see that any cops life is more important than any one elses so either he does not get charged or cops do.
If I am a lawyer, I bring up as evidence the thousands of cases where people are shot by cops simply because the cops feared for his/her life.
I see this way more simple than trying to determine if it is a good shoot vs bad shoot. Precedent has shown again and again that any cop in that situation would not even be charged therefore this guy should not be charged. I do not see that any cops life is more important than any one elses so either he does not get charged or cops do. If I am a lawyer, I bring up as evidence the thousands of cases where people are shot by cops simply because the cops feared for his/her life.
To me personally, not a dam thing.Maybe I wasn’t clear enough:
What does the HK sticker mean to you in this case?
In some states it's a matter of law. TX clearly states that I can shoot to protect my property. Personally, if your stealing my tv, I'm not going to shoot you. But that's just me.Looks to me like he shot him to stop him from fleeing, not because he perceived him to be a threat. Now is using deadly force justified to protect your property? That’s a matter of opinion.
What kind of TV do you have?In some states it's a matter of law. TX clearly states that I can shoot to protect my property. Personally, if your stealing my tv, I'm not going to shoot you. But that's just me.
Your friend should consider that his intent won't be clear until he is fleeing with the TV. Be a shame to get shot while breaking in .What kind of TV do you have?
Asking for a friend.
true that!Your friend should consider that his intent won't be clear until he is fleeing with the TV. Be a shame to get shot while breaking in .
Google Image Result for https://conversation.which.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/black-and-white-tv.jpgWhat kind of TV do you have?
Asking for a friend.
No, it was an Army/Navy store.To me personally, not a dam thing.
To the situation?
Was this a gun store? Could change the dynamics of the situation. Could also be used by the cops to make him look like a gun nut. Context of what happened is important, and we don't have it.
Allowed to detain, but not at gunpoint, for a minor theft.When I look at these things, I'm looking for any excuse to call it self-defense, to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. I can't see it here, and that's not what I wanted to see. If Florida law permits him as a merchant to detain with threat of deadly force for petty theft, then he might have been within his rights. But that's what he needs, IMHO.
You can see that Lopez's grip on the hatchet in his right hand was choked up all the way to the blade, and he had hooked the handle around the door, probably to give himself a grip to resist the force of the merchant trying to pull him back. The hatchet was not in a striking grip when he was shot, nor at any time in the doorway. If Lopez had stopped pulling away and started to shift his weight back towards the merchant while unhooking the hatchet handle from around the door, I'd be all for shooting him instantly, even without him attempting to modify his grip to a striking grip, but none of that happened here. The hatchet handle stayed hooked around the door, and Lopez was pulling away to the point of falling down. I think he would have fallen without being shot. The merchant showed he wasn't in fear when he grabbed him by the shoulder while Lopez had his back turned, to the the point of grabbing the shirt when the grip on the shoulder failed.
The self-defense claim might get him a hung jury, I guess, but I think it's just a calculated thing here. I don't believe this merchant was in fear. His actions belie it. Probably at the time he thought he was within his legal rights to detain Lopez using any level of force.
They weren’t going to break in.Your friend should consider that his intent won't be clear until he is fleeing with the TV. Be a shame to get shot while breaking in .