So is that a justification to shoot some scrawny unarmed kid twice in the back as he's running away?
he only began running away when shots were fired
you don’t know what he had on him, he could have broke that door down and starting firing or grabbed a knife and started stabbing s***
Mfs itt rly doing the unknown unknowns defense
What if he had weapons of mass destruction bro
Mfs itt rly doing the unknown unknowns defense
What if he had weapons of mass destruction bro
george bush called the father and told him he had wmds
Mfs itt rly doing the unknown unknowns defense
What if he had weapons of mass destruction bro
because his intentions were unknown
your argument is exactly the point, it’s UNKNOWN what the f*** he was trying to break the door down for
he only began running away when shots were fired
you don’t know what he had on him, he could have broke that door down and starting firing or grabbed a knife and started stabbing s***
So after the first shot which had him running away should you fire two more shots in his back or what?
please before you quote me again
i am not saying you are right or wrong
im jusr saying basing an argument on a law existing is bad
im not saying your position is wrong or right
y'all virtue signaling like y'all Roy Jones in this MF cause he look like yall
Not all black people are trigger happy americans
...... nigga what?
guy 1 says this death is in part due to the mindset being a large cultural provlem
guy 2 says "no this isnt a problem this is clear cut castle doctrine"
i say that the existence of a law does not mean that something is or is not a social problem
the rebuttal here is that the judge jury executioer mindset doesn't apply here because this is castle doctrine but these aren't mutually exclusive events. you can be justified to kill someone under castle doctrine but does that mean you should?
what happens if we take this to a hypothetical where the castle doctrine doesnt exist. what's then the argument to make that there isn't a problem in the judge jury executioner mindset? the existence of castle doctrine is not proving anything
u read it wrong dude take the L find a new angle to argue from
if i post a verbatim quote and u gotta obscure its meaning through paraphrase to respond, ur fried.
guy 1 says s***
guy 2 says s***
you read it wrong and posted for pages
i just said using the existence of a law to prove or disprove a social problem is a bad argument
i don't know why you're bringing in all this extraneous info
He doesn’t understand.
Or doesn’t want to.
Yes, women are killed by their exes,
Which is f***ing horrible, nobody is disproving that.
Yes, that happens.
I just don’t see that happening in this scenario, especially with the father being present.
I sure as hell ain’t letting my daughter get murdered, now does that mean I have to kill someone? Maybe so, I’d rather not though.
because his intentions were unknown
your argument is exactly the point, it’s UNKNOWN what the f*** he was trying to break the door down for
Donald Rumsfeld would be proud

please before you quote me again
i am not saying you are right or wrong
im jusr saying basing an argument on a law existing is bad
im not saying your position is wrong or right
fam, we operate and make decisions based on law. what is so hard to understand about that? what are you even trying to make a point about bruh, seriously?
he said there was a wider social problem, I countered that with something that was more relevant to the situation, and you’re saying I’m in the wrong? you’re not making sense.
It's insane to me that people are defending him shooting two more shots after he started running away
Americans rly just bloodthirsty waiting for a moment to use their guns
Yeah if it were me in that moment I would've calmed my mind and aimed for a non vital area with my first shot. Then immediately put down the gun cause I am positive I brought the threat down. Called the cops, he takes a trip to the hospital then jail, and I have a nice dinner later that night.
u read it wrong dude take the L find a new angle to argue from
if i post a verbatim quote and u gotta obscure its meaning through paraphrase to respond, ur fried.
guy 1 says s***
guy 2 says s***
you read it wrong and posted for pages
i did not obscure the meaning whatsoever
Yeah if it were me in that moment I would've calmed my mind and aimed for a non vital area with my first shot. Then immediately put down the gun cause I am positive I brought the threat down. Called the cops, he takes a trip to the hospital then jail, and I have a nice dinner later that night.
and then wait for him to retaliate
exactly how it should be
fam, we operate and make decisions based on law. what is so hard to understand about that? what are you even trying to make a point about bruh, seriously?
he said there was a wider social problem, I countered that with something that was more relevant to the situation, and you’re saying I’m in the wrong? you’re not making sense.
so was slavery cool because they were operating and making decisions based on law
...... nigga what?
You implying that everybody itt who's against shooting the kid to dearh gotta be bc they're white sympathizing w the guy bc of his race
That's bullshit multiple ppl itt who arent white itt who don't think he shoulda shot em, we're just not american
so was slavery cool because they were operating and making decisions based on law
THAT IS NOT A LAW ANYMORE NIGGA
get out this thread dawg
THAT IS NOT A LAW ANYMORE NIGGA
get out this thread dawg
but it shows the problem on..
wait for it...
basing an argument on law!
THAT IS NOT A LAW ANYMORE NIGGA
get out this thread dawg
Prison slavery good bc it's legal
I know but there's definitely a trend itt in who's defending this and who's not tho lol
but it shows the problem on..
wait for it...
basing an argument on law!
I said the wider social problem is women being murdered by their exes in heat of passion situations
that is more relevant to the issue at hand, make any sense yet?