Custody argument results in Texas man being shot to death, lawyer claims it was self-defense

and it seems you disagree with the video too cuz we were talking about a second or two

because something can't possibly be true if people on political for him don't agree with me

Why not just evaluate it make points like what I've been asking you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

What the hell does the guy have to wait for to be dead to be disarmed what?

If you explain this one f****** thing that you said that makes no kind of sense then I'll give your give your argument some consideration and I don't give a s*** who agrees with you.

 

I see your argument, and it is an interesting one. But now your argument pretty much seems to be the equivalent of "if someone gets within 3 steps of you, they are too close and you are allowed to shoot them".

 

Lord have mercy.

You said he had to wait. What did he have to wait for?

so explain how that means the threat was stopped was that person incapacitated and unable to disarm him?

So you have to know what's going to happen in the future in order to defend yourself you have to be clairvoyant in order to defend yourself what you wouldn't need to at that point.

 

Well, you are logically correct about that.
If every other single person on this forum disagrees with you, you might still be right. It does not prove with absolute certainty that you are wrong, though it does casually suggest it.

 

He had to wait for the man to start moving forward or trying to take his gun again.

He should have taken a few steps back at that point to add more distance.

 

I don't have patience for straw man fallacies.

 

Yes, but you are looking one step a little too far ahead into the future.

 

It doesn't even do that.

You think I'm wrong and you can't explain why.

I asked you a question multiple times you refuse to answer it.

I'm going to ask it right now again and will watch you refuse to answer it again.

If I just regained control of my firearm from someone who is trying to take it away from me and they're still there they aren't incapacitated in any way and perfectly able to try and take my firearm again what do I have to wait for before I can defend myself?

You keep saying we have to wait for something what is this something that has to occur?

 

That's what your argument pretty much boils down to, as far as I can see.

You said he should shoot him because he was still dangerously too close.

Is that not what you were saying?

 

So you would assume someone who took a gun away from you isn't going to use it against you?

At that point why not just give it to them

 

What is that question?

 

I would assume that. (I already told you that) But I would not assume it enough that it would be able to justify killing that other person.

It's a matter of degrees. You are mistakenly assuming the two are equivalent.

Because the man with the gun still has the opportunity to shoot.

Not shooting at that moment in time does not take away his ability to shoot if the other man tries to take the gun again.

 

actually no you stated that after he regained control of his firearm he had to wait and then I asked you wait for what, and then you didn't say what he had to wait for.

So what part of your argument did I misrepresent

what post did I say that in

You don't have to ask me this question just read what I typed. I said what I said.

 

Is this the first post of mine you've actually read?

I'm going to point you to post number 83.

I'm not going to type it out anymore because I've done it 20 or so times and you haven't read it and all those times so I'm just going to refer you to the previous post

 

He should have waited for the other man to start moving forward towards his direction again.

 

so if you have a gun and you're using it defensively why don't you just hand it to the person who you're using it to defend yourself against if they're not going to hurt you then there's no need to have it at all. Self-defense doesn't exist because no one is going to hurt you because you believe that.

then if you were in this kind of situation you'd probably pretty quickly be killed. Real life isnt a cowboy movie.

degrees of what what are you talking about

but if he tries and succeeds to take the gun away then he doesn't have the gun anymore and it could be used to kill him so what is he supposed to wait for?

 

Why?

 

You should have to wait until they are currently in the process of moving towards you.

You still have a chance to use force to defend yourself if you just wait a little bit for that.

How close they have to be depends on how fast they are moving.

 

Because we cannot be absolutely certain the other man was going to try going for the gun again.

90% isn't really good enough.

If you're going to kill someone, you better be near 100% sure they are in a position that is a dangerous threat to you.

The other man was not at that time in a position where it was appropriate to kill him, and he had not gone into the position again yet where it would have been appropriate to kill him.

It is entirely an issue of time frame. You are talking about the past, and future probability. I am talking about the present moment.

 

Why?

so you can defend yourself against someone but only when they're moving toward you not when they're a threat to you?

So within a few feet you have to let someone advance on you the moment you stopped moving gigs their speed to some algorithm you come up with in your head and that was supposed to all know and only then you're allowed to defend yourself?

Why?

 

why does he need to be certain the law doesn't require that. The law says reasonable fear for your life.

show me the statute that lists percentage

if they tried to take my gun away from me than that I am 100% sure they are in a position that is a dangerous threat to me.

Why?

 

Look, let me try to illustrate this with an analogy.

Imagine that is seemed someone tried to kill you yesterday. And imagine you think they will likely kill you tomorrow, but you are not really sure.
Do you think that should justify a self defense killing today, or would that be a matter for the police?
You already know the answer to that.

The person has to be presently trying to kill you for you to use self defense.

 

You are confusing the reason why lethal force in self defense is allowed.

If I think there's someone out there who has a 70% chance of trying to kill me, that doesn't mean I can legally take them out first.

 

How am I confusing that?

 

The problem is, you are conflating the different time tenses of the word try, trying, tried.