Black Teen Shot by Neighborhood Watch

Off Topic
61

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting.

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]
[/quote]
Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.

If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

Jesus Christ, stop acting like ANYWHERE in the continental US has definitions of “self defense” and “appropriate force” as loose as the ones in Texas. In the state of Texas, you can break into your neighbors house when they aren’t home in order to shoot a burglar who is in the process of robbing said house. This isn’t Texas, where even toddlers are encouraged to arm themselves for fucks sake, it’s Florida, a sort of southern state populated almost entirely by northern transplants.

Very interesting that the shooter wasn’t even taken in. Not very often you get to shoot and kill someone in apparent cold blood and just go home*. This guy may have gotten very lucky since there have been cases where 911 calls prior to a killing have been used to assert that premeditation existed.

*outside of the state of Texas[/quote]I don’t care where Florida law falls ultimately, if the boy did threaten the man, I support his decision to shoot in this arm chair jury conversation of conjectured opinions and projected insecurities.
[/quote]
Also, minus like a 100 mile strip running along the Louisiana border, we are more of a southwestern state than “southern”.

Other than Miami, you people are swamp rat southerners to the max. FTR and all.

And frankly, Arizona’s open carry is the real McCoy.

62

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:
Welcome to Obama’s America…4 more years![/quote]
Fortunately he’s been a lame duck.

63

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:
Welcome to Obama’s America…4 more years![/quote]

This makes so little sense in so many ways…

Now if an unarmed cop was shot with a stolen handgun the joke would at least be more in line.

64

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]
[/quote]

Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.

If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

That is the point.

It is up to the Police to prove otherwise but you still need more than a kid saying “I’ll kill you”. Really. Even your last statement you added the word “Aggressor”.

This happened on the street while the kid was walking. The kid was approached by the guy as he was coming from the store returning home.

Words alone does not qualify for this use of force. At least not from what we know so far.

Now the civilian could have told the police that the kid became violent and started moving towards him in an aggressive manner while saying “I’ll kill you” that shows both an aggressive position and a intent.

Even TX has some rules hell if not guys would be shooting people from a block away saying the guy yelled “I’ll get you suck a”

Oh and was this a guy in uniform? Or just a civilian watch captain in regular clothes?

[/quote]
The dudes were engaged in some form of altercation, enough so that the watch called the police (I reject the notion they were called simply bc the kid was black for the more sensible notion that he did, in fact, draw attention to suspicion) and felt the need to protect himself.

If the kid grew belligerent and made a verbal threat, the man had a right to self defense in the likely confrontational scenario that is the context of this thread.

The idea being that when in a threatened situation where you are unsure of whether or not your safety actually is on the line, the benefit of the doubt is on your side as you were placed in the unfortunate position of judging the level of your safety at the hands of another.

Hesitate even briefly and you just might be dead and therefore have the right to react in defense.

But yes, two feuding people yelling “ima get you” would have a hard time overcoming premeditation one way or another; this story is not that scenario.[/quote]

Ok Now you are adding more to the story than is known. You’re guessing.

What we know is that the police where called because an unknown person was walking thru the are. The watch Captain seen the kid and decided to handle things. This is all we know.

65

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]
[/quote]

Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.

If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

That is the point.

It is up to the Police to prove otherwise but you still need more than a kid saying “I’ll kill you”. Really. Even your last statement you added the word “Aggressor”.

This happened on the street while the kid was walking. The kid was approached by the guy as he was coming from the store returning home.

Words alone does not qualify for this use of force. At least not from what we know so far.

Now the civilian could have told the police that the kid became violent and started moving towards him in an aggressive manner while saying “I’ll kill you” that shows both an aggressive position and a intent.

Even TX has some rules hell if not guys would be shooting people from a block away saying the guy yelled “I’ll get you suck a”

Oh and was this a guy in uniform? Or just a civilian watch captain in regular clothes?

[/quote]
The dudes were engaged in some form of altercation, enough so that the watch called the police (I reject the notion they were called simply bc the kid was black for the more sensible notion that he did, in fact, draw attention to suspicion) and felt the need to protect himself.

If the kid grew belligerent and made a verbal threat, the man had a right to self defense in the likely confrontational scenario that is the context of this thread.

The idea being that when in a threatened situation where you are unsure of whether or not your safety actually is on the line, the benefit of the doubt is on your side as you were placed in the unfortunate position of judging the level of your safety at the hands of another.

Hesitate even briefly and you just might be dead and therefore have the right to react in defense.

But yes, two feuding people yelling “ima get you” would have a hard time overcoming premeditation one way or another; this story is not that scenario.[/quote]

Ok Now you are adding more to the story than is known. You’re guessing.

What we know is that the police where called because an unknown person was walking thru the are. The watch Captain seen the kid and decided to handle things. This is all we know.
[/quote]For like the fifth time, this entire thread and its assumed conjecture is all made up suspicion. My scenario is most likely.

Nobody in their right mind just runs up to a kid of any color and randomly shoots him in cold blood, in the open, without provocation knowing full well his act will be plain to see. It is just stupid, illogical, knee jerk reactionism to assume this guy saw a black boy in his community, thought “aw HELL naw!”, ran up and shot him.

Honestly, the whole elitist bit is probably shit too. It’s a fucking townhome community. The elite don’t live in townhomes. High rise condos maybe, but not townhomes.

This is basically an apartment complex (where the apartments are owned) with a gate where residents swipe a card to open and visitors use a call box to unlock.

This is not a community of multi-million dollar homes, five car garages filled with six figure vehicles and attitudes of invincible demi-gods above the law.

It’s a community of young up and comers and old fogies who couldn’t retire on the golf course.

The rampant, baseless assumptions otherwise are what I’m addressing in kind, though with more logic than emotion.

66

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]
[/quote]

Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.

If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

That is the point.

It is up to the Police to prove otherwise but you still need more than a kid saying “I’ll kill you”. Really. Even your last statement you added the word “Aggressor”.

This happened on the street while the kid was walking. The kid was approached by the guy as he was coming from the store returning home.

Words alone does not qualify for this use of force. At least not from what we know so far.

Now the civilian could have told the police that the kid became violent and started moving towards him in an aggressive manner while saying “I’ll kill you” that shows both an aggressive position and a intent.

Even TX has some rules hell if not guys would be shooting people from a block away saying the guy yelled “I’ll get you suck a”

Oh and was this a guy in uniform? Or just a civilian watch captain in regular clothes?

[/quote]
The dudes were engaged in some form of altercation, enough so that the watch called the police (I reject the notion they were called simply bc the kid was black for the more sensible notion that he did, in fact, draw attention to suspicion) and felt the need to protect himself.

If the kid grew belligerent and made a verbal threat, the man had a right to self defense in the likely confrontational scenario that is the context of this thread.

The idea being that when in a threatened situation where you are unsure of whether or not your safety actually is on the line, the benefit of the doubt is on your side as you were placed in the unfortunate position of judging the level of your safety at the hands of another.

Hesitate even briefly and you just might be dead and therefore have the right to react in defense.

But yes, two feuding people yelling “ima get you” would have a hard time overcoming premeditation one way or another; this story is not that scenario.[/quote]

Ok Now you are adding more to the story than is known. You’re guessing.

What we know is that the police where called because an unknown person was walking thru the are. The watch Captain seen the kid and decided to handle things. This is all we know.
[/quote]For like the fifth time, this entire thread and its assumed conjecture is all made up suspicion. My scenario is most likely.

Nobody in their right mind just runs up to a kid of any color and randomly shoots him in cold blood, in the open, without provocation knowing full well his act will be plain to see. It is just stupid, illogical, knee jerk reactionism to assume this guy saw a black boy in his community, thought “aw HELL naw!”, ran up and shot him.

Honestly, the whole elitist bit is probably shit too. It’s a fucking townhome community. The elite don’t live in townhomes. High rise condos maybe, but not townhomes.

This is basically an apartment complex (where the apartments are owned) with a gate where residents swipe a card to open and visitors use a call box to unlock.

This is not a community of multi-million dollar homes, five car garages filled with six figure vehicles and attitudes of invincible demi-gods above the law.

It’s a community of young up and comers and old fogies who couldn’t retire on the golf course.

The rampant, baseless assumptions otherwise are what I’m addressing in kind, though with more logic than emotion.[/quote]

But why is your scenario most likely? My guess is that he did decide to harass the kid simply because he was black, if only by subliminal prejudice and not outright racism. Why else call the cops and then go out to confront the kid? Likely because the cops weren’t going to respond to a “kid walking around the neighborhood lookin’ suspicious.” From there an argument may have taken place, but the neighborhood watchman is not a cop and had already notified the police. Why then did he make the decision to confront this kid?

67

Hell, who said the guy was in his right mind? Yes people flip out everyday run up to innocent people and start shooting, stabbing or just good ol beating ass.

Shit does happen.

But is this the case?.. Well we just don’t know.

Try this version:

This guy lives in the area. He is fed up with kids coming into his block making noise and doing bad things. He joins the watch program and is having a hard time because whenever he calls the cops they are always late. He decides to handle shit himself but picks a kid who is not doing anything but trying to get home.
He jumps out his car starts yelling at the kid the kid does not live there does not know about any watch group if the guy has no uniform he looks like a crazy man. The kid out of fear reacts and the guy shoots.

My story and your story both made up.

68

Is it common for neighborhood watch people to carry firearms? I thought they were only supposed to be armed with flashlights and cell phones to prevent stuff like this from happening.

Is the gated community also legally liable for allowing the watchman to play Dirty Harry?

69

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:
Welcome to Obama’s America…4 more years![/quote]

This makes so little sense in so many ways…

Now if an unarmed cop was shot with a stolen handgun the joke would at least be more in line.[/quote]

I love when new people to the forum don’t catch on to the irony/true idiocy/lulz of my posts

70

[quote]mud lark wrote:
Is it common for neighborhood watch people to carry firearms? I thought they were only supposed to be armed with flashlights and cell phones to prevent stuff like this from happening.

Is the gated community also legally liable for allowing the watchman to play Dirty Harry?
[/quote]

I think we are getting Private Security mixed up with Watch Programs. In most areas the watch people are just home owners who take turns walking or driving around then call the cops if they see weird shit. Private security are the cop looking uniform guys.

Also I think the guy was just using his own CCW.

71

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Kayrob wrote:
Everything I have read about this incident seems to be asking whey the guy has not been arrested yet. Is it possible that without witnesses the cops want to make sure they have all their ducks in a row, ie balistics tests to see how far away the guy was when he shot him, things like that. For all we know an arrest may be imminent, but they want to make sure the evidence is good.[/quote]

I bet he would have been arrested if he were black and the kid shot were white.[/quote]

Hell, if that were the case, SEVERAL black dudes would have been brought in for interrogation.

I was really bothered by this case thinking about it last night. It’s bad enough as news, but as a dad with a teen son myself, it really digs into my heart.

72

[quote]BDSLift wrote:
Hell, who said the guy was in his right mind? Yes people flip out everyday run up to innocent people and start shooting, stabbing or just good ol beating ass.

Shit does happen.

But is this the case?.. Well we just don’t know.

Try this version:

This guy lives in the area. He is fed up with kids coming into his block making noise and doing bad things. He joins the watch program and is having a hard time because whenever he calls the cops they are always late. He decides to handle shit himself but picks a kid who is not doing anything but trying to get home.
He jumps out his car starts yelling at the kid the kid does not live there does not know about any watch group if the guy has no uniform he looks like a crazy man. The kid out of fear reacts and the guy shoots.

My story and your story both made up.[/quote]
Of course shit happens. Hell, maybe a meteor fell from the sky, hit the watchman, made him lurch and accidentally pull the trigger. Probability says my scenario is more likely.

But you are making my point for me. Everyone in here is making up accusations.

73

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:
Hell, who said the guy was in his right mind? Yes people flip out everyday run up to innocent people and start shooting, stabbing or just good ol beating ass.

Shit does happen.

But is this the case?.. Well we just don’t know.

Try this version:

This guy lives in the area. He is fed up with kids coming into his block making noise and doing bad things. He joins the watch program and is having a hard time because whenever he calls the cops they are always late. He decides to handle shit himself but picks a kid who is not doing anything but trying to get home.
He jumps out his car starts yelling at the kid the kid does not live there does not know about any watch group if the guy has no uniform he looks like a crazy man. The kid out of fear reacts and the guy shoots.

My story and your story both made up.[/quote]
Of course shit happens. Hell, maybe a meteor fell from the sky, hit the watchman, made him lurch and accidentally pull the trigger. Probability says my scenario is more likely.

But you are making my point for me. Everyone in here is making up accusations.[/quote]

Yes. Including you.

But I think my version is more probable and I’ll tell you why.

One of the two involved was looking for confrontation (driving around looking for a young trouble maker to scare off).
One of the two was looking to just go home and give his brother some skittles.
Who is more likely to escalate the situation from conversation to an act of violence?

74

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:
Hell, who said the guy was in his right mind? Yes people flip out everyday run up to innocent people and start shooting, stabbing or just good ol beating ass.

Shit does happen.

But is this the case?.. Well we just don’t know.

Try this version:

This guy lives in the area. He is fed up with kids coming into his block making noise and doing bad things. He joins the watch program and is having a hard time because whenever he calls the cops they are always late. He decides to handle shit himself but picks a kid who is not doing anything but trying to get home.
He jumps out his car starts yelling at the kid the kid does not live there does not know about any watch group if the guy has no uniform he looks like a crazy man. The kid out of fear reacts and the guy shoots.

My story and your story both made up.[/quote]
Of course shit happens. Hell, maybe a meteor fell from the sky, hit the watchman, made him lurch and accidentally pull the trigger. Probability says my scenario is more likely.

But you are making my point for me. Everyone in here is making up accusations.[/quote]

Yes. Including you.

But I think my version is more probable and I’ll tell you why.

One of the two involved was looking for confrontation (driving around looking for a young trouble maker to scare off).
One of the two was looking to just go home and give his brother some skittles.
Who is more likely to escalate the situation from conversation to an act of violence?[/quote]

Exactly.
I’m pro gun, but it’s assholes like Zimmerman with an itchy trigger finger that fuel the anti-gun groups.

75

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]

This one?

I dont see it. Hell it even has a disclaimer.

Oh well.

76

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]
Yeah, we wrecked shop, dismantled the taliban, broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, eliminated a genocidal fascist and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.

It turned out pretty fucking awesome.

And, I bet you’re exaggerating. I doubt he alluded to indiscriminately killing on a whim, don’t be intentionally stupid.[/quote]

Either it’s me who cannot detect sarcasm over the internet or some people just derive their political education from cartoons.

77

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]
Yeah, we wrecked shop, dismantled the taliban, broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, eliminated a genocidal fascist and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.

It turned out pretty fucking awesome.

And, I bet you’re exaggerating. I doubt he alluded to indiscriminately killing on a whim, don’t be intentionally stupid.[/quote]

Awesome.

Whatever you smoke, I want some.

Because it seems to me like you shredded your constitution and the Magna Charter , reinvented Augustus “Firsts Citizen”, the Starchamber and the Spanish Inquisition, all for the low, low price of completely, utterly and irreversibly ruining your country with debt.

Bonus points for selling that debt to the Chinese, handing your balls over to your main rivals has a certain panache.

78

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]
Yeah, we wrecked shop, dismantled the taliban, broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, eliminated a genocidal fascist and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.

It turned out pretty fucking awesome.

And, I bet you’re exaggerating. I doubt he alluded to indiscriminately killing on a whim, don’t be intentionally stupid.[/quote]

Either it’s me who cannot detect sarcasm over the internet or some people just derive their political education from cartoons.
[/quote]

Well there was one poster who quite literally compared the US military to the Justice League, being in an epic struggle with the forces of doom and all soooooooo…

…that might actually be happening.

79

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]
[/quote]

Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.

If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

That is the point.

It is up to the Police to prove otherwise but you still need more than a kid saying “I’ll kill you”. Really. Even your last statement you added the word “Aggressor”.

This happened on the street while the kid was walking. The kid was approached by the guy as he was coming from the store returning home.

Words alone does not qualify for this use of force. At least not from what we know so far.

Now the civilian could have told the police that the kid became violent and started moving towards him in an aggressive manner while saying “I’ll kill you” that shows both an aggressive position and a intent.

Even TX has some rules hell if not guys would be shooting people from a block away saying the guy yelled “I’ll get you suck a”

Oh and was this a guy in uniform? Or just a civilian watch captain in regular clothes?

[/quote]
The dudes were engaged in some form of altercation, enough so that the watch called the police (I reject the notion they were called simply bc the kid was black for the more sensible notion that he did, in fact, draw attention to suspicion) and felt the need to protect himself.

If the kid grew belligerent and made a verbal threat, the man had a right to self defense in the likely confrontational scenario that is the context of this thread.

The idea being that when in a threatened situation where you are unsure of whether or not your safety actually is on the line, the benefit of the doubt is on your side as you were placed in the unfortunate position of judging the level of your safety at the hands of another.

Hesitate even briefly and you just might be dead and therefore have the right to react in defense.

But yes, two feuding people yelling “ima get you” would have a hard time overcoming premeditation one way or another; this story is not that scenario.[/quote]

Ok Now you are adding more to the story than is known. You’re guessing.

What we know is that the police where called because an unknown person was walking thru the are. The watch Captain seen the kid and decided to handle things. This is all we know.
[/quote]For like the fifth time, this entire thread and its assumed conjecture is all made up suspicion. My scenario is most likely.

Nobody in their right mind just runs up to a kid of any color and randomly shoots him in cold blood, in the open, without provocation knowing full well his act will be plain to see. It is just stupid, illogical, knee jerk reactionism to assume this guy saw a black boy in his community, thought “aw HELL naw!”, ran up and shot him.

Honestly, the whole elitist bit is probably shit too. It’s a fucking townhome community. The elite don’t live in townhomes. High rise condos maybe, but not townhomes.

This is basically an apartment complex (where the apartments are owned) with a gate where residents swipe a card to open and visitors use a call box to unlock.

This is not a community of multi-million dollar homes, five car garages filled with six figure vehicles and attitudes of invincible demi-gods above the law.

It’s a community of young up and comers and old fogies who couldn’t retire on the golf course.

The rampant, baseless assumptions otherwise are what I’m addressing in kind, though with more logic than emotion.[/quote]

But why is your scenario most likely? My guess is that he did decide to harass the kid simply because he was black, if only by subliminal prejudice and not outright racism. Why else call the cops and then go out to confront the kid? Likely because the cops weren’t going to respond to a “kid walking around the neighborhood lookin’ suspicious.” From there an argument may have taken place, but the neighborhood watchman is not a cop and had already notified the police. Why then did he make the decision to confront this kid?
[/quote]
Who knows? We weren’t there. We don’t know why he took interest to the kid or followed through how he did. It’s shitty of you to baselessly crucify the guy as a blood thirsty racist though. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. You don’t know.

I do know that if I saw a grandma being mugged I’d call the police and step in too, for example.

80

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]
Yeah, we wrecked shop, dismantled the taliban, broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, eliminated a genocidal fascist and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.

It turned out pretty fucking awesome.

And, I bet you’re exaggerating. I doubt he alluded to indiscriminately killing on a whim, don’t be intentionally stupid.[/quote]

Either it’s me who cannot detect sarcasm over the internet or some people just derive their political education from cartoons.
[/quote]

Well there was one poster who quite literally compared the US military to the Justice League, being in an epic struggle with the forces of doom and all soooooooo…

…that might actually be happening.

[/quote]

Ummm you might be thinking of young President Bush.