Vigilante gun Nut KILLS Innocent Man

This is hypothetical because according to the report the thief threatened with a log first.

You correct that each situation has its own set of facts and circumstances but generally speaking most folks aren't going to attack someone pointing a gun at them as you are forcing them to try and shoot you.

If the guy was just following the guy how did he get close enough in proximity to him to be threatened by an attack with a log? There are just a lot of questions that I don't know the details.
 
yet had someone wearing that DULY AUTHORIZED BADGE killed him in the same manner, you'd be calling it outstanding police work. do you see your idiocy yet?

Yes, I now see it's shear idiocy to try and have a rational discussion with you about the role in society that law enforcement plays.
 
Could it be he was DEFENDING himself from a man he felt was STALKING him?

Do Y-O-U have all the facts?

you seem to be severely confused as to what constitutes 'stalking'... following a person one time is not stalking. When you are being followed because you just committed a crime... it is definitely not stalking.
 
It is not a strawman lil Rune... he stated that people should just wait for the cops when a crime is being committed. It is in this thread.

Oh but you were very specific before...

Zappa is the type of good citizen that would let someone else get raped, murdered, mugged while waiting for the police.

I never said ANYTHING about waiting for the police if a RAPE, MURDER or MUGGING was occurring.

Turns out it's just another bullshit SF lie.
 
If the guy was just following the guy how did he get close enough in proximity to him to be threatened by an attack with a log? There are just a lot of questions that I don't know the details.

Hmmm... one guy was on a bike, the other on foot carrying stolen beer. Probably not a lot of distance between the two.
 
Oh but you were very specific before...

I never said ANYTHING about waiting for the police if a RAPE, MURDER or MUGGING was occurring.

Turns out it's just another bullshit SF lie.

Its not a lie you moron. It is an opinion of mine based on your comments on this case and others.
 
It's the bullshit argument you keep using to justify a man gunning down another man in cold blood.

1) it was not cold blood
2) No, it is an opinion based on YOUR comments.

Again... learn what terms mean before you attempt to use them. It might help you look less foolish than you already do.
 
This is hypothetical because according to the report the thief threatened with a log first.

You correct that each situation has its own set of facts and circumstances but generally speaking most folks aren't going to attack someone pointing a gun at them as you are forcing them to try and shoot you.


And again, maybe the ALLEGED thief felt threatened by the man he saw following him from the Circle K.
 
And again, maybe the ALLEGED thief felt threatened by the man he saw following him from the Circle K.

It isn't alleged you idiot... he stole the beer. He still had it with him. If he didn't want to be followed, he shouldn't have stolen the beer. You keep pretending that it isn't clear cut that he stole the beer.
 
If the guy was just following the guy how did he get close enough in proximity to him to be threatened by an attack with a log? There are just a lot of questions that I don't know the details.


Hmmmmmm...good questions all!

It appears we don't have all the answers, yet wacko, SF and so many others have already tried and convicted the alleged beer thief.
 
you seem to be severely confused as to what constitutes 'stalking'... following a person one time is not stalking. When you are being followed because you just committed a crime... it is definitely not stalking.

And where specifically might I find that distinction spelled out in the Arizona penal code?

Or is it just how you FEEL the law should read?
 
Back
Top