A Kansas City fireman was shot by the girlfriend of the convicted felon he was fighting.
The felon had started cussing at a store clerk and both the clerk and fireman asked him to leave the store. The felon goes to his vehicle and gets a pistol and proceeds to threaten the fireman. The fireman takes the gun away and proceeds to give him a whooping. The girlfriend then shoots the fireman in the back after picking up the pistol that was dropped during the fight.
Apparently there is video showing the felon "tapping out" and the fireman bouncing his head off the pavement. I haven't seen that though if true I could see that changing things.
A Kansas City fireman was shot by the girlfriend of the convicted felon he was fighting.
The felon had started cussing at a store clerk and both the clerk and fireman asked him to leave the store. The felon goes to his vehicle and gets a pistol and proceeds to threaten the fireman. The fireman takes the gun away and proceeds to give him a whooping. The girlfriend then shoots the fireman in the back after picking up the pistol that was dropped during the fight.
Apparently there is video showing the felon "tapping out" and the fireman bouncing his head off the pavement. I haven't seen that though if true I could see that changing things.
Which is an example of why it's impossible for anyone here without knowledge of the incident not in the article to give a legitimate read on it. Opinions, oh there's going to be quite a few, but they are what they are.
How could it be justifiable when the guy was being beaten in self defense after he threatened the victim with a gun?
Seems to me if you threaten someone with a gun and he takes it away and beats you to a pulp, there is no legitimate claim of self defense.
Personally I agree with you. Threatening someone with a gun because he pissed you off means you deserve whatever happens to you IMO.
On the other hand I could see a lawyer saying he was clearly giving up (if the the tapping out is true) and once he gave up the fireman was not justified in continuing to pound on him or bounce his head off the pavement.
How could it be justifiable when the guy was being beaten in self defense after he threatened the victim with a gun?
Seems to me if you threaten someone with a gun and he takes it away and beats you to a pulp, there is no legitimate claim of self defense.
Seems to me you're a fûcking retard.
I'm not going to play the what if game.
The following commentary should be truly enlightening.
In the US you can't claim self defense against someone whom you forced to defend themselves. That would only be the case if their response was irrationally unproportional. If you spit on their shoes, that is an assault but shooting the spitter would be considered a bit much.
How could it be justifiable when the guy was being beaten in self defense after he threatened the victim with a gun?
Seems to me if you threaten someone with a gun and he takes it away and beats you to a pulp, there is no legitimate claim of self defense.
Personally I agree with you. Threatening someone with a gun because he pissed you off means you deserve whatever happens to you IMO.
On the other hand I could see a lawyer saying he was clearly giving up (if the the tapping out is true) and once he gave up the fireman was not justified in continuing to pound on him or bounce his head off the pavement.
I don't see how "tapping out" plays into it. If a guy threatens you with a gun he's not playing by any rules.
How could it be justifiable when the guy was being beaten in self defense after he threatened the victim with a gun?
Seems to me if you threaten someone with a gun and he takes it away and beats you to a pulp, there is no legitimate claim of self defense.
Seems to me you're a fûcking retard.
I'm not going to play the what if game.
The following commentary should be truly enlightening.
In the US you can't claim self defense against someone whom you forced to defend themselves. That would only be the case if their response was irrationally unproportional. If you spit on their shoes, that is an assault but shooting the spitter would be considered a bit much.
Self-defense laws vary substantially from state to state.
From reading the article, the gf killed the firefighter. Or am I incorrect?
Regards
Correct. The GF shot the fireman.
I'm still looking for the video, but I think it's going to come down to whether or not the fireman continued to beat on the felon after the felon stopped resisting. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure legally speaking you're not allowed to dole out a beating to your attacker after he has stopped resisting.
How could it be justifiable when the guy was being beaten in self defense after he threatened the victim with a gun?
Seems to me if you threaten someone with a gun and he takes it away and beats you to a pulp, there is no legitimate claim of self defense.
Personally I agree with you. Threatening someone with a gun because he pissed you off means you deserve whatever happens to you IMO.
On the other hand I could see a lawyer saying he was clearly giving up (if the the tapping out is true) and once he gave up the fireman was not justified in continuing to pound on him or bounce his head off the pavement.
I don't see how "tapping out" plays into it. If a guy threatens you with a gun he's not playing by any rules.
Good post^^^ "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Shooting was not justified by the crack whore.
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
