CrimsonPermanentAssurance
30239
729
22
Jul 4, 2026 9:44 PM
CrimsonPermanentAssurance
30239
729
22
lildude52ca
The law should protect people from nut cases who want to start shit.
Ricdesan
IF you are a Vet and stupid enough to aggressively encounter a member of the US idiocracy that is scared enough to point a weapon at you ... you deserve your well earned Darwin exit.
Frozenspokes
Just your friendly reminder that being a veteran doesn't make one a good person. Even somebody who was dishonorrably discharged can claim veteran status.
Unfortunate500
While I am not a fan of vigilante justice, this seems to be the worlf some people long for. I can't even call it vigilante justice in Florida...street justice? Everyone is Judge, Jury, and Executioner of everyone else?
While I want her to beat a system that was essentially designed to let rich white people gun down the poors or browns that got too close, I really don't want to see that volume of death and suffering inflicted on Florida that is their due...even if they voted for it.
Niagaran
Don't know where you're getting the vigilante part from. She was minding her damn business when this asshole stalked her. She defended herself. That's not vigilantism
tinyfootprints
Guns make stupidity a lot worse.
thedarkcanuck
Funny how the veteran status always gets thrown around in situations like this as if it has any relevance
Nukls
that all sounds like settler violence
Holinyx05
"Trump has some white Americans drunk on impunity" That's the best I've ever seen it described.
PunnyTiger
we SHOULD be hearing daily about people of all races shooting masked terrorrists impersonating federal officers while comitting felonies such as grevious bodily harm, assault, battery, kidnapping, murder. y'all have guns everywhere. I gaurantee you execute a few of them that the organization falls apart. these bitches don't go anywhere that people shoot back.
freshthrowaway1138
This type of article is why I hate the US worship of veterans. Fuck your vet status, and we shouldn't think you're some noble warrior because of it. I should point out that I am a veteran. Most vets are just drunk assholes who did a job. Stop putting them on a pedestal. Especially in news articles that are swaying the reader.
slack3rdav3
agreed. every time i hear it, i kinda want to throw up in my mouth. but i dont want to be a dick to people who are 'just trying to be friendly' with a default statement they were trained to say.
NKato
To Ms. McRady: What the fuck does being a veteran have to do with being a racist piece of shit threatening a lady? Come on.
idiotsonfire
Its to curry favor with the fascists. Fascism demands military worship.
TyrannusEquus
I live in Florida and y'all would love the comments on Facebook. A. He knew she had a gun and walked at her and B. Died over a parking spot. The news keeps trying to twist it like his veteran status was something she would know or even apply here.
randomdragon
The lady was released by police instead of being shot on the spot. The bar's been stamped into the floor so deep that her surviving the resulting police encounter afterward is exceptional...
SciFiGuy2018
Dumb ass white piece of shit shouldn't have been an asshole. Now he's dead. Happy Birthday AmeriKKKa.
TeddyMoment
I don't have enough information to form an opinion on this.
TheOldSchoolisBack
That’s a bold take, and one that more people should use. I’m not invested enough in this to learn all the facts, therefore I’m not going to form an opinion at this time.
HuCared
You do. 2 people are fighting over a parking spot. Is it okay for one to shoot the other?
TheDoctorCrankenstein
Thanks for proving you didn't bother to read about this. This is not two people fighting over a fucking parking spot. Quit being a twat. The fucker stalked this woman around the parking lot and then waited for her to come out the store to harass her again. This woman was being followed to the point she felt she needed to stand her ground and put an end to the threat. She is completely justified in her actions.
MissingGravitas
That's over-simplifying it, and isn't the question at hand. People fight over stupid things. Killing someone to win that fight is very much Not OK. This is not in doubt.
Here's the wrinkle: a stupid person (A) who gets in a fight over a parking space with another person (B) who's stupid enough to want to engage in violence over it would then have a right to act in self defense.
The question for the jury will be whether such a person (A) was justified in that thinking.
nomnamless
Remember how fast Republicans were ready to give up the 2nd amendment when a white man was executed by ice in Minnesota? Yea they are going to fund that black woman in the wrong here
fstngutz
If the white guy shot the black lady, this wouldn’t have even been a headline, we are currently on the dumbest timeline
Halfwise
Article with dead white person: happy family photo. Article with dead black person: mug shot, no photo, or happy family photo of the shooter.
Bhurano
The third article is nicely framed... just showing a weird smiling white man and trying IMMEDIATELY to draw on the victim being a veteran for sympathy.
Framing is a hell of a drug. According to a comment here both were basically at fault and could have easily avoided all of it. But in a land with so many guns it's easy to be stupid about a lot of things, as long as you have the gun at least. We'll see how it plays out for this woman.
BTW, the second article makes VERY valid points.
Grimlinnan
Governor Ron DeSantis to make announcement that will retro actively exclued all non-whites form using the law.
idiotsonfire
The reason the NFA was passed was because the Black Panthers started carrying guns and Reagan HATED that.
AsheLake
If your well regulated militia is black, it's apparently worse than just being some random asshole with a gun.
TheFastpaws
I once had a guy road rage follow me to work because I went when it was my turn at a stop sign. I barely peeped my window and held up my phone saying I was calling the cops. He left but still. Not the last time it happened to me either living in Maryland.
IMPICKLERICK
Both people suck here.
TheDoctorCrankenstein
Fuck that. The only person who sucks here is the racist ass white man who stalked and harassed a black woman to the point she felt her life was in danger.
Dip shit got what he deserved.
Yotarian
From what I've read elsewhere, she left to get a gun and came back. Theres a lot more to the story than what this post shares.
brownribbon
It is utterly irrelevant that he was a veteran.
idiotsonfire
Nah, its to curry favoritism among the fascists. Military worship is one of the key tenets of fascism.
brownribbon
I know
clrich912
I'd say it makes him look worse and her better, although the writer likely intended the opposite. He has training that taught him not to do this shit and also made him more of a potential threat. He ignored the former and leaned into the latter.
Bystandr
In the end when it comes down to the realities of confrontation, you should always TRY to disengage, deescalate or leave, but sometimes
Bystandr
trying to do so also means giving an attacker the initiative which could be fatal. The guy kept coming at her. He could have stopped to talk
Bystandr
but he kept advancing instead. Thats on him, especially when he knew she had a gun and threatened to use it.
OddlyPacific
So it’s having a gun when someone is coming towards you that makes it ok to kill someone? I can see that if you agree with the Kyle Rittenhouse precedent and I see this instance as something a cop or white person would get away with but maybe civilians shouldn’t have hand held killing machines outside of well regulated militias.
Bystandr
Wrong. You passed right over the start - where I said you should always try to disengage, which she didnt. But that guy - pressing in when theres a weapon off safe - thats on him.
woodintunoit
Bystandr said they should always try to disengage. Thats a bit different than what this woman or shittenhouse did. Second: this is the USA. There is zero chance of removing firearms from the general public - thats a pipe dream. Canada cant even pull it off with strict gun control due to the unregulated supply being smuggled into the country from the US. Back to the point: the reality (Bystandr references) of the confrontation here is they are both at fault, and this vet should have known better.
JohnSatclaire
If you keep advancing on someone who’s drawn a gun, they’re reasonable in assuming your intention is to take and use that gun against them and then shooting you before you can do so. Back the fuck away.
AsheLake
1] I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense in a vacuum. On the other, it means that bringing a deadly weapon into a conflict automatically justifies its use, which is more than a little fucked up.
If someone approaches you while you're holding a knife or a brick, does your fear of being disarmed and then stabbed/clubbed with your own weapon justify stabbing/clubbing them?
This sounds a lot like preemptive retaliation, which is bullshit.
AsheLake
2] I view bringing out a gun as an escalation, and I don't think it makes sense for the one escalating to be able to claim self defense.
The "I feared for my life" argument and the "I escalated the situation to a potentially deadly degree, therefore my life is in danger" type rhetoric also just sounds a like so much cop wank.
The kind of thing used to justify a killing that could have been easily avoided.
HuCared
Okay, so racism in the US is a huge problem, we're pretty much all of the same opinion here. But 2 people fighting over a parking spot and one person shooting the other is not so much a matter of racism as it is a matter of common sense and morals - or the lack thereof.
Niagaran
There's an excessively good chance that he only felt comfortable striking those tones with her because she's black and because he's white. Was white lol
Niagaran
And let's reiterate that this wasn't just a simple standoff in a parking lot. He fucking stalked her. A military-trained white man stalked a black woman to the point where she feared for her life
tzahtman
An incident at a parking spot started the encounter but the whole situation was not about the parking spot.
idiotsonfire
That would be correct if it only was about a parking spot.
TheDoctorCrankenstein
This isn't two people fighting over a parking spot. This is one person being harassed by an angry, entitled white man that got up in his feels he couldn't force a black woman to do his bidding, which just happened to be over a parking spot, and decided to fucking stalk and threaten this woman to the point she felt unsafe for her life.
It has EVERYTHING to do with racism.
brassmule
There were two separate altercations here, unfortunately, and the news reporting on this doesn't seem to cover it well. The male appears to be the aggressor in the first one, arguing over a parking spot. Both individuals ended that contact and went shopping. After shipping, she returned to her vehicle first and retrieved her firearm, then waited for the man to return while she was armed and thus brandishing her firearm at him. This makes her the aggressor in the second incident.
brassmule
SYG allows one to not be forced to retreat first to use a firearm defensively in a public place where one is lawfully located. SYG does not allow one to be the initial aggressor to an event that you escalate into using your firearm. That's just murder.
chefsoda
There’s an earlier post of this that has some lengthy discussions rolling, but in short, legally, her situation likely depends greatly on whether this is held as one altercation or two. He appears to be the aggressor in the first, but then she goes into the store & he parks elsewhere. She returns & prepares to leave, but is told he is still around. Instead of leaving, she draws a pistol and waits to confront him. If this is held as separate, she may well be found the aggressor, even if it
TyrannusEquus
What an interesting bit of information that can alter her case. I learned of a local case where a man and woman were arrested for different domestic batteries. The news would have you believe the evil cops arrested her for stabbing him after when he choked her. Turns out he did, but then began to run away after realizing he fucked up. She grabbed a knife and threw it at him, puncturing a lung. I don't think she really faced charges in the end. But it was two different events.
chefsoda
Using lethal force against someone who just tried to murder you, and using lethal force against someone for aggressive speech and intimidation, are seriously different cases.
Deadly attack leading to a deadly response, is reasonable to a larger part of the population, than a frightening attack with a deadly response. Juries are different all over, but this is simple math & prosecutors don’t push cases that they expect to likely fail
TyrannusEquus
I'm just providing an example of what appears to be one incident, are actually two. If there was a break, or a period where both parties separated, then a new interaction has occured. If she was so threatened by this guy, why did she retrieve a weapon and wait around for him? I don't know the facts, just the little information were presented with. I'm curious how it'll all pan out, but as of right now I'm on team "you fucked around and found out".
chefsoda
ends with her backing away before killing him.
Clearly, none of that touches on the racism, sexism, and all other disparities that can top the balance, regardless of the law.
Personally, both their behavior is absurd and reprehensible. It’s a parking spot. It’s not worth screaming over, much less confronting someone over, and never worth killing or dying for. Just madness.
Note: from the reporting I’ve seen, the final report on her here is incorrect. She was arrested, but is no
chefsoda
longer in custody. That does not mean she cannot or will not be charged
SlaaneshiRightsFront
I've been saying it for years, but Americans are just so fucking bloodthirsty. Not all Americans, obviously, but they idolize this idea of self defense so fucking much they do the dumbest shit to gratify that fantasy.
Like pull out a gun and wait for the guy to come back to they can act tough, and end up escalating from a minor, concluded incident to murder.
crazyspelling
100% this. The absolutely common outlook, reflected in the comments here numerous times, is that it's better to murder someone than risk getting jail time (or even civil liability) yourself. And while "FAFO" is certainly a factor to consider (the shooter didn't ask to be put in that situation and shouldn't face legal consequences), there is still a very real moral difference between killing someone that's an imminent threat and killing someone to avoid legal hassle. Downvotes incoming.
Megadestructo
Honestly, this kind of mentality is what makes me want to deescalate no matter what. I don't own a gun and never plan on it, but I *DO* always want to go home to my family. This supercedes any desire to "be right." At least in these kinds of situations.
I have interceded on behalf of someone getting attacked before - scary shit and I was extremely lucky everyone calmed down quickly. Definitely outta my depth!
HeHeHebieJeebies
Hopefully she called the cops while waiting, unless it happened too quickly to establish that she was attempting to de-escalate. As for waiting around, why would she drive off alone away from a place with surveilance, bystanders and potential helpers and lead him to her home and family? 90%+ of women homicides are by men, that's literally her only natural predator on this continent. He chose to walk up on her and continue to advance.
chefsoda
Your pitch is that she got back out of her car, brandishing a firearm, in an attempt to de-escalate? That may not be her best angle to try in court. Introducing deadly force into an argument is not usually considered de-escalation.
She could have chosen to do many things, but what she did choose was to resume the argument with greatly increased threat of violence. There is a great difference between having no duty to retreat, and choosing to confront.
HeHeHebieJeebies
Nowhere in the original post, the post I referred to or my post are the words "she got back out of her car". I see open carry all the time in my town, i'm not assuming she doesn't have a similar license. She cooperated with police and was released. They have more facts about it than your spin with extra toppings so it all fits your world view. I feel she was 100% correct to stay in a public location with plenty of witnesses. Also whats up with the victim shifting? What she could have done???
chefsoda
dgarsfgaew
You're flailing now, and need to pause. Having a tantrum and tossing ad hominem attacks just makes you appear laughable. I have no world view in this, nor have I used any information not available to everyone. I'm an attorney discussing how the laws of self defense work, with what is available here.
The eyewitnesses at the scene said she returned to her car to leaver, but when she was told he was still walking around, she drew her weapon and waited for
chefsoda
him. The pictures have her in the open car door, you're welcome to believe she did or did not sit down, it doesn't change anything. There is no license to open carry n FL, though we have no idea if she was doing so.
She was arrested, then later released from custody, that is entirely different than what you are claiming. People are often not held in custody while a case is investigated, then later charged. We have no knowledge of her current status.
I have no doubt that you feel you're 100%
crazyspelling
I recall the reason why Florida stand your ground was total horseshit license-to-kill in the first place was because you could absolutely start the altercation and then still use self defense when they fought back. Most rational jurisdictions don't allow an instigator to claim self-defense, or at least they wouldn't meet the fear requirement. Did they tweak it in FL to make it more sensible?
chefsoda
As far as I know, FL, and all other states have never allowed a claim of self defense from the aggressor. As in this case, the question lies within the decision as to when the conflict ends.
If the aggressor stop fighting and withdraws, in a way the court finds was an end to the aggression, the earlier victim cannot continue fighting without becoming the aggressor.
In this case, if the two confrontations are held as separate, rather than one ongoing, she’s in real trouble.
crazyspelling
That's what the AI says. The loophole, for example, in FL is you can use stand your ground if you are somewhere you have a right to be, and not committing a crime.
https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xlvi/chapter-776/section-776-012/
Most states expressly state instigators waive the defense. Not FL. George Zimmerman wasn't committing a crime when he followed Trayvon Martin after the 911 dispatcher told him not to, he provoked that second, fatal confrontation and got away with it.
crazyspelling
Same deal with Kyle Rittenhouse. He got away with self-defense plea because nobody nailed him for going to a counter-protest with an assault rifle to begin with. Of course it's self defense in the 20 seconds before and when he pulled the trigger, but the analysis on how and why it got that far in the hours and minutes beforehand is sorely lacking in a lot of jurisdictions.
chefsoda
Again, this is not how the case was plead or transpired. The prosecutors in this case made serval absurd errors, that likely enabled the verdict, but they sought to both analyze and charge everything he did that night, from crossing state lines as a minor with a rifle, trespassing at the store he decided to "defend", and made some attempt to demonstrate he was the aggressor during the conflict that became lethal. He should have been found guilty, and the errors committed were enraging, but the
chefsoda
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Being somewhere you are legally allowed to be is a basic legal premise for most actions is not a loophole. The right to use the affirmative claim of self defense always depends on the person not being the aggressor & often has some restriction on their rights at the time. That clip of the law is absolutely standard in the US, with the addition of the SYG phrase. All states I know of have a restriction as to the immediate actions of the
chefsoda
person claiming self defense, and there is often a list of crimes that prevent its use. Are you trying to draw the distinction between SYG & Castle Doctrine?
politely, the Zimmerman example is incorrect at each step. Zimmerman never used a SYG claim at all, neither side ever mentioned it. The media talked about it non stop, but it was never an actual issue. Zimmerman was acquitted for the shooting because he was held to be the victim of the
crazyspelling
It doesn't say "if you instigate you waive the right to claim self defense," that's the loophole. Take the instant case for example. Instigating a confrontation is not a crime, and you can do it right there in public. That's what I'm saying - as long as you aren't trespassing or actively assaulting or robbing someone, you can provoke and escalate as much as you want, and when they snap, shoot them in self-defense. See what I mean?
meganical
It’s funny that they think “veteran” makes the article sound like the man is a good person when it actually tells you that he has had training in combat and firearms, which makes him more dangerous than an average person.
Niagaran
The weird, cultish pedestal that America puts on its members of the military. A soldier can be sent home for raping babies and he'll still get "thank you for your service" when he gets home. The same people who drone bombed the Iranian elementary school will be praised as heroes back home.
It's part and parcel of America's indoctrination
crazyspelling
It's a result of how badly people were treating returning Vietnam veterans, who were probably conscripts anyway.
Niagaran
The shitlibs and fascists are downvoting us but better to be on the right side of history
tzahtman
It also shows him calm and smiling not stalking that black woman around, waiting for her outside the store, and red faced shouting racial slurs.
Them3OtherGuys
We already know what's going to happen. It was less than a month ago that a trans woman in Wyoming, a 'Stand Your Ground' state, was charged with aggravated assault and possession with intent for pulling a gun on a white male after he verbally and physically assaulted her.
Source: https://www.advocate.com/politics/trans-woman-wyoming-stand-your-ground
awkungen42
Can't have people believe that trans people are people.
r0b0tc0rpse
Well her mistake was not standing.
FisheswithDynamite
If I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons she was charged was that she instigated further, as in crossed the street to confront him. If I'm wrong, then I will absolutely change my tune, but I'm almost positive there was video evidence that showed her crossing the street to escalate the situation. This fact made the stand your ground defense dubious, and so it had to go to trial.
BeardicPerformance
Call me crazy but I think that, if you kill someone, it probably should go to trial. If you were justified, let a jury decide that.
r0b0tc0rpse
This should definitely go to trial based on the video. Not all cases would, as the prosecutor can determine if there is evidence enough to convict. It would be a waste of public resources to try every self defense case when it is abundantly clear on video. We allow the court of public opinion to sway these decisions too much.
urusername2
The laws are for me, not thee!
CuntCrotchula
Yeah, but that was a tran-tifa member /s
Corvidae365
Unfortunately the way these defense laws are written if you pull a gun and don't use it you're more likely to face criminal responsibility for it. I'll put it clearly we live in a country where you're better off to shoot someone dead then to tell someone back off I have a gun. We're not a very pro-life country, so sadly if you carry a gun never pull it out unless you're ready to pull that trigger immediately and shoot until the threat is stopped. Otherwise you'll like the way to go to jail.
CrimsonPermanentAssurance
Facts. Some black lady pulled a gun in self defense but decided not to end a life and prosecutors got her for 9 years.
r0b0tc0rpse
If you pulled a gun and *didn't use it*, it shows that you were not in a situation where you needed to pull it in the first place.
Corvidae365
Yeah that's kind of what I was trying to say because that's a huge issue in general. Sadly sometimes stand your ground laws protect people who shouldn't have pulled them in the first place. At the same time I don't like the duty to retreat if you're truly threatened. Unfortunately self-defense is very difficult to make good laws around.
MacTually
Yeah a better way to phrase this is "don't carry or own a gun unless you are prepared for and comfortable with murder in your life".
I'm 44. Veteran. Did a stint as a meathead or tech bro.
Guns are inviting accidents into your life with close to zero utility otherwise.
marconipenguino
Only a moron would think this means “it’s better to kill someone.” If you’re waving your gun around like you’re a tough guy, you’re not in any danger. The lesson is “don’t wave your gun around if you’re not in danger.” The lesson isn’t “better kill him or you’ll be in trouble.”
Synapt
Every concealed carry instructor out there will actually tell you it's better to shoot to kill and its because of the way the laws are written and the way they'll be used against you by the prosecuting attorney, assuming there is one.
marconipenguino
If you think gun instructors can’t be morons, I can’t help you.
crazyspelling
I hear you, but also... do you want to pull the trigger on someone you're not scared of just to avoid a legal hassle? I don't think I could do it. If I'm afraid for my life or the life of another, yes. If the moment of fear has passed... do I want to commit murder so there won't be a witness to assault? That's not a decision I'm outsourcing to my firearms instructor. And a blanket rule of "kill someone to avoid trouble for yourself" needs to be examined separately in each case.
Imustntrunaway
That is correct. I've gotten a license to carry in one of the hardest states to do so, and I was told that almost word for word.
No 'aiming for the leg' or 'maybe it'll scare them off'. Center of mass, shoot til there is no longer a threat. Nothing more, nothing less. No brandishing, if you've got time to try to scare somebody, it's not enough of a threat to fall under self defense. People get screwed for this all the time.
Corvidae365
Yeah I really wish people would shut up about the aiming for a leg thing too because as much as I like the idea of not killing someone if you have to shoot, ignoring legality of it. It runs into the big issue only late shot is definitely not non-lethal, it's almost like one of the biggest arteries in your body runs through your leg.
PoorBoyChevelle
This. If your gun is out, you better have made peace with the fact that someone could/will die, because if that wasn't the situation before, it definitely is now.
datphone777365
Ya forget the ave person only focused on the fuckin section of their biology class. That goes for all of humanity. Even a "shoulder" wound can be fatal if ya hit the right blood vessels there...
ObjectivePragmatistWithHope
It's the most jackass or mentally deficient recommendation. You put a slug almost anywhere in a leg, especially the thigh or knee thigh, instead of the chest, all you're doing is killing them slower, like 8 times outta 10. It's kinda like hey, instead of the head, I'll shoot you in the gut. -_-
datphone777365
Its just a oozing chest wound.
BubblesTheFish
If you're going to pull a gun, use it. You don't want to have someone testify against you.
r0b0tc0rpse
Correct, the problem here is that the state probably has no "defensive display". If you pulled a gun and *didn't use it*, it shows that you were not in a situation where you needed to pull it in the first place.
PoorBoyChevelle
I think the complicating factor in that case was they were in / just left a bar. Asked July 2025, you cannot carry "any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic liquor and malt beverages for consumption on the premises;"
r0b0tc0rpse
You don't get into an argument with someone and draw a gun and hold it on them for this duration while they walk around, this is no longer self defense.
TChallaVanDam
Ugh. So stupid.
TChallaVanDam
Not your comment. I hope that was obvious. I mean the “logic” behind these stupid laws existing.
r0b0tc0rpse
You shouldn't brandish. If you are in a situation which requires lethal force, use it. All other situations don't apply.
r0b0tc0rpse
I watched the video... It's a bad shoot, 100%. I think it'll be 50/50 if she gets off though. He is empty handed, slowly walking around the car. She drew the gun on him fairly early. Stupid of him to walk toward someone pointing a gun at him, but also not doing anything a reasonable person would think would be a imminent threat of bodily harm.
BeardicPerformance
That is an incredibly stupid law. It means that if you draw a gun to defend yourself and they back off immediately before you shoot, you’re incentivized to shoot them anyway because then it’s not a crime. It should never be illegal NOT to kill someone.
2074red2074
If you're calm enough that you have time to assess their reaction to your gun and decide whether or not you should use it, then you weren't in enough danger to justify using it anyway.
BeardicPerformance
If you’re so panicky that you can’t accurately assess the situation, you shouldn’t be trusted with a gun.
r0b0tc0rpse
I guess almost every state has got it wrong then. /shrug. Good thing idiots behind keyboards aren't the ones making the laws.
r0b0tc0rpse
Real life isn't like hollywood. These moments don't get stretched out into time-dilation like a John Wick film. If you draw, you fire, immediately
CatskinnerKeen
If you have time to think about it, they have time to try grabbing your weapon.
BeardicPerformance
And if you draw and they stop as the gun leaves your holster, you now have to shoot them anyway. It’s a stupid law.
PressthamGravey
Over a parking spot.
ZackWester
Wellcome to the US of A(hole). Where the concept of Empty, cooperative, Community or anything that is not the worst level of Me and myself have by Politics and Coperate been squashed and or labelled a weakness. where if a man first instinct open seeing someone walking on the street is not I must shot and kill that person is consider week.
Imademyselfsquirtle
Nah its wasn't over that. It's because he felt entitled and because Trump is king, this douche canoe feels he has the same power as the pedophile rapist. So the black woman had to be put in her place because that is a white person parking spot only.
irmonkey
It was in the south. It wasn't about a parking spot.
Eyeetsass
Would love to hear the verbal exchange.
hill4KittenVillain
Very reasonable
rightinthekisser
She won. https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1MTdsOXp2YzNqOGs5NTU0bWszajB3NmJxdHBlc2JhcXA1NG40OWgyZyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/tjQZgALoKlbR6/200w.webp
Incognitomodeactivated
Diabolical +1
Level21Magikarp
https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1N3d5a2NsNGEweGVpeGIxdmhjcmhmbjZyZ285OTV4NHlobzZqNnduNiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/443jI3kpgOKfAfKxqo/200w.webp
jetact12
No. That confrontation was about a lot of fucked up ideas but it damn sure was not about a fuckin parking spot. It was about if I walk definitively in your direction with my fists clenched and an angry look on my face and I yell, scream, cuss, at what point do you start to believe I am trying to convince myself to lay hands on you with evil intent.
ghostofGracchusBabeuf
This is not at all difficult to believe the road rage in Florida is real
FelonyRaptor
File under: Most American Things
CrimsonPermanentAssurance
It was most definitely not over a parking spot. It was over entitlement, race, gender, fragile feelings and toxic masculinity. But not about a parking spot
10001110101periodictablewithasantapieceofmind
Honey all that was involved but it started over, yes, a parking spot. The facts are the facts
maxwilder
More like over entitlement. What he felt entitled to have, and entitled to do to people he felt were beneath him.
chefsoda
Absolute madness
HuCared
Only in the US
SergeyPrkl
Yea, not even the taliban allows this.
DerpMeister
Just as the writers of the 2nd amendment intended. /s
bourbonandbaddecisions
If it was with a musket
stayme
Yes because she is a well regulated militia
GargleTheseNutz360
Guns over human life... what a rule to live by and defend like it's the sane choice
haki23
That's why I park in Outer Siberia. The walk is better for me than all the people trying to fight for a easier space
Tezerah1
Then come out to find someone parked right next to you
haki23
As tradition demands
Cthulhuonabike
Let's be real. This wasn't about a parking space. It wouldn't have happened at all if it had been some white lady.
eyespy95523
Yep, it's all about the escape from that mayhem. Park way over there and get your step in.
Hexidimentional
this shit is why stand your ground is problematic, you should always have a duty to retreat
Margrave9000
Yup. Failing to retreat means willing to take part.
MrGhostbuster
Unless you're on your own property.
FetteredJuvenescence
I don't really agree. All you need is a duty to not initiate, provoke, or escalate.
DarwinsAgain
Problematic is an understatement. A judge and jury will need to spends hours, days, weeks even to decide if the woman's actions met the requirements to fit the 'stand your ground' statute. But that law implicitly requires ordinary citizens with no legal training or guidance to make that decision in just a few seconds or minutes.
Margrave9000
Yup. It's easier to just mandate retreating. That's clear for every citizen in any situation. Simple to follow, simple to judge.
TakeAChillPill16
This particular occurrence is problematic, because she initially left, disengaged from the first confrontation, then went back and waited for the guy, and they had another confrontation. This case isn't as black and white as it's being painted, either racially, or in the application of stand your ground. If her "going back" part is equated to instigating the 2nd confrontation, then she won't be protected by Stand Your Ground
crazyspelling
Wait, this is FLORIDA stand your ground. Unless they tweaked it, the entire reason it was bullshit in the first place was because you could provoke a confrontation and then shoot the other person if you felt threatened.
CrimsonPermanentAssurance
That's a wild hot take.
brownribbon
How so?
organiclife3
As wild as killing someone over a parking spot?
Hexidimentional
the wild hot take is that where i live we dont have people killing people over parking spots.
JonnyTightlips
Canada? Born and raised in Canada and the only guns I've seen are 12G that farmers have an the sidearm that cops have....it's fucking bonkers that people in rando parking lots have guns. The US is fucking horrible.
PressthamGravey
Yep. An armed society is not a polite society especially with a mental health epidemic going on.
Hexidimentional
i mean look at the usa, is that a polite society?
PressthamGravey
I imagine some places are.
AlwaysCloudyInGermany
Yeah. We are expected to let ourselves get robbed. This is just another level of bullshit, be a se if I seriously injure or kill a thief/burglar, I go to jail here in Germany... I don't understand why there is no middle ground.
Like having to give a warning (shot) first or shoot to disable. Not everything needs to be fatal, but you need to be able to defend yourself.
crazyspelling
Warning shots go somewhere. I was in Philly many decades ago when two gang members had a shootout in the street outside my window. It last about 3 seconds, and the result was one dead gang member, one guy shot in the thigh, through a wall, a block away, and somebody's grandmother shot in the elbow two blocks away, through a window.
Also, shooting to wound is basically an impossible shot to reliably make in a close quarters confrontation, legally and factually.
phoenix0path
Life>property. It is that simple, my guy.
Margrave9000
Yup. Your property is never worth a robber's life. Society should reinforce this.
LostCaterpillar
"Shooting to disable" is some of the stupidest shit anyone can say. Guns aren't phasers. You cannot set them to stun.
The problem with stand your ground laws is that even when they're applied correctly they still lead to lots of unnecessary injury and death because people cannot be expected to know the law perfectly and that means people opening fire when they should not.
Take, for example, any of the cases of people firing blindly through doors because they "felt threatened."
AlwaysCloudyInGermany
...stupidest shit anyone can say? Where have you been the last 12 years?
If you had proper gun laws, we would not have to talk about this anyway.
Stand your ground law is not even among the first 100 pages of things that need to be changed in the USA...
AlwaysCloudyInGermany
Standing your ground should ideally not mean "Kill if threatened". There should at least be a duty to disable, if you are starting it. Shoot in the foot, give a warning first or something like that
wejustdontknow
That's the hard part. A gunshot yo a leg can be deadly. You got a femoral artery in the leg that will certainly bleed you out real quick.
TyrannusEquus
No, not that. You can't, in the moment, be expected to shoot to disable. And a disabling shot on one person may kill another. Warning shots are the worst idea, because you have introduced a lethal projectile into an unknown direction. Don't introduce a firearm unless it is needed.
grandfalloon
Absofuckinglutely not. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound." If you fire a gun, you're trying to kill, period.
MissingGravitas
Disable? Sorry, but that's very much confusing movies with real life. If you want to disable, that's what pepper spray/gel/etc is for.
Imustntrunaway
If you aim for the leg or warning shot or vocal warning type shit first, all of that will fuck up any claim at self defense you may make and you'll be going to jail and staying there.
Self defense has a very narrow definition and a specific time when it's allowed. If you have time to fuck around and not just blow a hole center of mass on someone, it'll be judged you weren't threatened enough to justify the gun having left the holster, regardless of all other details.
r0b0tc0rpse
You have no idea what you're talking about, don't repeat this garbage.
WarThunderLeakedMySpecs
That’s the neat part: if you escalate to a gun, you automatically jump to death. Gunshot wounds are survivable, yes, but the purpose of a gun is to kill. If someone points a gun at you, that is not a threat to disable. It’s why tasers and batons exist.
Legally, there is also no distinction. Shooting to wound is legally an admission that you didn’t truly fear for your life. If you aren’t scared enough to kill, leave the gun in its holster.
FermentTheRich3000
In the moment, a foot shot will likely miss and give the attacker an opening. Most people defending themselves aren't prepared for the adrenaline.
AlwaysCloudyInGermany
Yeah, that's why it would be better to have our gun laws, like we have, where you are only allowed to bring guns to a shooting range and nowhere else unless you are police, hunter or security.
meerkat212
So if someone's coming after me with a gun, I gotta try to disarm the dude before I can shoot em? Sometimes it just isn't that cut and dry. Things happen quick. Adrenaline kicks in.
But, certainly, I do agree that stand your ground should be only pertain when there's imminent threat of harm or death to another.
AlwaysCloudyInGermany
I wrote "if you are starting it". Means you are the first one who is pulling a gun like the woman in this incident.
Hexidimentional
gun ediquitte demands never pointing a firearm at something you're not willing to kill, that's the problem a lot of gun owners have.
IamTOOOLDforThisShite
*etiquette
Margrave9000
Everybody understood what they wanted to communicate. Their orthography is just as valid as yours.
Why should it be 'corrected'? To flaunt your privilege? To shame someone whom capitalism, classism and racism prevented from being educated in the 'correct' way of spelling words?
Your knowledge is essentially a lawn - it only shows off waste. Look at you, you can afford learning spelling while the poor must learn mundane things like cooking, sewing, cleaning, carpentry or tiling.
IamTOOOLDforThisShite
No, their mis-spelled "orthography" is NOT "as valid" as the correct spelling.
What a stupid statement.
And yes, I understand about the privilege of education and intelligence, and I understand about dialect and vernacular.
This ain't that.
NeoMonish
Why should a mistake be corrected? Because how else are people supposed to learn. If nobody had ever corrected your spelling you'd have just rolled your face on the keyboard and nobody would ever have known that you thought that learning and knowledge were elitist.
DickTipPapercut
from the video it looked like she was, or trying to reasonably. i remember a video a couple days/weeks back in a department store of a karen chasing someone around the store yelling 'get her away from me'. you do that shit when someone is retreating, you deserve what you get.
LostCaterpillar
She retreated to her car, got a gun, and then hung around by her car until he came back over to yell at her more. If the races were reversed we'd all be calling this a hate crime.
Margrave9000
Take power into account. Whites hold much. Blacks barely hold any. She was levelling the field.
She could reasonably expect that the White aggressor could have taken her license and would be on his way to access her address with the help of a corrupt, racist White pig.
slopwizard
That's sort of the point! For George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin, which happened in the same state, we all did call it a hate crime. He was acquitted. Will we see a similar acquittal for this woman?
PowerThruster
I had read a witness told her the opposite basically. She was told (after id assume) that he waited out in his car until she came back out. Though what you're stating may very well have been after reencountering eachother. That same report also said she got back out of her car to continue though; so its hard to tell where this will lead rationally. Realistically though, this administration is more likely to use her as a racist dogwhistle call for retribution and stochastic terrorism regardless.
LostCaterpillar
We have the video of her returning to her car, getting the gun, and then hanging around until he comes over to continue their argument. If you can get in your car to get a gun you can get in your car and drive away.
I don't think there's any question that he's a jerk as well but being a jerk is not something that should carry the death penalty. That's true when the victim is an unarmed black teen and it's still true when the victim is a middle aged white guy.
PowerThruster
I was unaware there was video. For sure, stand your ground definitely shouldn't apply here. Absolutely nothing kept her there but an urge to cause harm or further escalate. Its unfortunate its going to become a racial issue in most discourse rather than a firearms or mental health issue. Theyll be twisting themselves in knots defending a black woman or taking an anti-2nd amendment stance.
PressthamGravey
Even death?
meerkat212
People have the right to defend themselves from threat, especially if they are in fear. So, if that person causes someone to fear injury or death, then yes, if that's what it takes to stop the threat.
Margrave9000
You have a duty to retreat.
DickTipPapercut
which, again, she did try to do, enough so that she was able to arm herself.
ImJustHereAtThisPoint
When will the person who is approaching stop?
PressthamGravey
I suppose if they have a gun too then you're pretty much fucked. That's a problem. Fights break out here all time and no one died because the option wasn't there to shoot them.
gcleff19101
Unfortunately there is no going back to that here.
ImJustHereAtThisPoint
Sure, but that's not life here in the States baby. Literally ANYONE can be strapped up and ornery, and usually those fuckers ARE the instigators. I'm sure homeboy here thought the odds were in his favor too if this escalated.
76000BatteryLlamas
Yeah that's the whole point. If you believe someone is pursuing you to injure or kill you, you have to choose to either kill or be killed.
Margrave9000
You have a duty to retreat.
DickTipPapercut
which, again, she did try to do, enough so that she was able to arm herself.
76000BatteryLlamas
In the majority of the states in the US, you do not.