FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker - Page 38

EMJ · 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone

EMJ
What would you expect after your insulting remark to him regarding Foxpaws...friendly agreement?

No. He was bragging about how her posts made no sense so I let him know my opinion: her posts were reasonable and spot on IMO. I'm not responding to him anymore. I'm walking away from the hothead... See how that works? The whole argument of this thread.

speeder · speeder's Garage

Saying that you were in fear for your life and had to shoot someone means nothing by itself in the eyes of the law. A reasonable person would have to have been in fear for their life. That's why he was arrested and is being held on a no-bail murder charge.

And he's a retired police captain with a clean record in the city where it happened. If anyone would get the benefit of the doubt from the local authorities, it would be him.

On top of that, this happened in Florida. One of those weird states in the southern U.S. with very lenient laws regarding shooting someone in self-defense. Where you can shoot someone in the back and not get charged with murder in some cases.

Yet still, on this internet forum we have members who look at this as a clear case of self-defense based on the facts presented so far. Some of you guys are so far out in right field that you're not even in the game.

speeder · speeder's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone

But he is not 60...and is protected by law.

So what? Then he calls 911 and has the guy arrested for assault by popcorn. He isn't protected by any law that excuses 2nd degree murder, obviously, and he's probably never going to breathe free air again in this life.

intakexhaust · intakexhaust's Garage

fp- I don't expect you to reply but bothered why you would think actually think this? You don't even know the ages of the posters here and to assume the older age group are justifying in killing another?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Reading all these posts I am struck with something - age 'vision'.

It appears that most people who are under 35 or so feel that the older gentlemen 'went too far' in killing someone for texting. Most of those older than 55 or so seem more often to side with the older gentleman, he was somehow 'justified' in killing this 'azzhat' for throwing popcorn (protecting himself and his wife from some perceived deadly assault).

Who do you think will determine the fate of gun ownership/the 2nd amendment in the future?

Quote:

Originally Posted by intakexhaust

Drifting from the topic here but this one raises another question. What does the next generation do with all of our guns? You as a gun owner, what are your plans for the your guns once gone? Seriously.

Scenario - While here, what's one conscience thinking if an heir of a gun goes nutz? If so concerned about responsible gun ownership, how can a current gun owner predict if an heir OR next owner by sale is sane enough? Why not turn your guns in now to protect the future generation?

I know of a few in their 30's and one in his 20's that have inherited from a few gun's to rather nice collections. One in particular never had interest in guns, contemplated selling but going on four years has kept all of them.

I might suggest visiting a gun show or range and observe. I'm not sure if the NRA might have a better idea on age stats but I've seen a wide age range of both men and woman, guessing a majority are in the 30 to 40 year old. Guns, illegal or not are here forever.

Back to the topic......

Here's a sad one in the news today - FP: not that age matters but the police officer who lost it was 34
Utah police officer kills own kids, shoots wife & mother-in-law dead before killing himself: cops - NY Daily News

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Sorry Speeder, but you are just flat wrong. The law is clear. If he reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...he has no responsibility to retreat and may use deadly force to protect himself. A good solid right hook can cause great bodily harm to a senior citizen.

70SATMan · 01-17-2014, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone

But he is not 60...and is protected by law.

The only thing I've been able to find concerning the protection you mention is aggrevated assault being elevated to a first degree felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

If I've missed a specific citation you've posted, please reference it for me..

Otherwise, I don't think the protection you speak of applies in this case.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

According to the shooter...he did not know what struck him...so the popcorn remarks are silly since it never figured into his decision.

I can only put myself in his place. If the guy was coming after me and struck me, I would assume the it was on...and he would likely hit me again. I would do what I thought necessary to prevent that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeder

So what? Then he calls 911 and has the guy arrested for assault by popcorn. He isn't protected by any law that excuses 2nd degree murder, obviously, and he's probably never going to breathe free air again in this life.

foxpaws · foxpaws's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by intakexhaust

fp- I don't expect you to reply but bothered why you would think actually think this? You don't even know the ages of the posters here and to assume the older age group are justifying in killing another?

I sort of know the general ages of most who post here - you don't always know what happens in PMs, etc.... The 'justification' of using lethal force is more about the method of lethal force, in this case specifically, guns.

What I see, not only among those who post here, but in the population in general, is that the 'culture of guns' is an aging, mostly white, demographic. People who are younger seem to not be caught up in that culture. It seems somewhat 'age/race' specific (I guess you could also point to inner city black youths - but, that is more a 'dealing' with illegal weapons, and not a voting demographic in large). I question on what will happen to gun control laws as that demographic ages further, dies, or becomes less politically important because of the sheer numbers of the younger demographic. Look at the 'requirement' to register guns in I believe Connecticut. I think that is crazy - and very much against the 2nd, however, younger people who have been influenced by the huge amount of press following what appears to be senseless gun violence, aren't going to view it the same way. I believe the erosion of the 2nd is almost becoming inevitable.

speeder · speeder's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Yeah, back this claim up.

You just KNOW this, don't you?

Hilarious.

Dude, stop trolling.

Go back, ( I know you have the time), and visually scan a page or two of this 34 page thread. Even though the subject matter touches several "hot button" issues, there is a refreshing lack of name-calling and bickering. Not to mention emoticon abuse and large font/multi-colored text plus cartoons and ultra-repetitive memes.

Except for you.

It's textbook internet trolling. It could be in a textbook someday when people are studying antisocial behavior in the early internet age. You cannot bear to see a group of people having a reasonably civil, (though long-winded), discussion so you have to take a dump in the middle of the room and start jumping up and down while screaming and pulling your hair.

I've seen you do it before, with the cartoons and the endlessly repetitive needling of another poster that you've engaged. Just stop it. If you did something similar in the gravity world, someone would close your mouth for you. But you know that, so you're probably as polite as can be in real life. So you do it here, where nothing bad can happen. Anyone who points it out is simply wrong and about to get a barrage of cartoons ands colored text.

This has nothing really to do with the argument or discussion at hand. It's about being an internet troll. Stop it.

foxpaws · foxpaws's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone

According to the shooter...he did not know what struck him...so the popcorn remarks are silly since it never figured into his decision.

I can only put myself in his place. If the guy was coming after me and struck me, I would assume the it was on...and he would likely hit me again. I would do what I thought necessary to prevent that.

You are taking the word of the older man, and not the word of the witnesses (that we have been privy to). The old guy has reason to further his 'side' of the story (and to lie perhaps) - to foster the SYG defense.

He can say anything, but with eye witnesses that don't cooperate his 'version' in court it will be a difficult sell.

Plus, I would be quite surprised if he took the stand (if it gets to that point), rarely does the defense want to put their client on the stand - especially since it allows a whole lot of other evidence to be presented, usually damaging to their client.

70SATMan · 01-17-2014, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone

According to the shooter...he did not know what struck him...so the popcorn remarks are silly since it never figured into his decision.

I can only put myself in his place. If the guy was coming after me and struck me, I would assume the it was on...and he would likely hit me again. I would do what I thought necessary to prevent that.

So anything,,,, a hat, a waded up M&M wrapper, a loogie on the cheek would qualify?

Ridiculous, nay silly, from one with training.

Maybe it was so dark that he couldn't see what was thrown... perfect reason to draw a weapon and pop off a round, yes?

speeder · speeder's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone

Sorry Speeder, but you are just flat wrong. The law is clear. If he reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...he has no responsibility to retreat and may use deadly force to protect himself. A good solid right hook can cause great bodily harm to a senior citizen.

So how do you explain him sitting in a cell on a no-bail murder charge? In the same part of the same state that let George Zimmerman just go home without charges after shooting TM?

It sounds like witnesses, including the off-duty deputy that detained him, have a different version of this incident than you are telling.

Rusty914s · 01-17-2014, 09:01 AM

Fintstone, are you related to the retired shooter? I just ask since it seems that this is a very personal situation for you.

All is good in the world, there are crazies but there are also really good people everywhere...

That's all, go back to posting 50 responses a day to make the same point, over and over again.

70SATMan · 01-17-2014, 09:05 AM

I can imagine the shooter sitting down in a cold sweat with the realization that he was past his shelf date regarding his responsibilities for CCW.

Did he really just sit there and let the dude bleed out or did he attempt to help render aid?

Heel n Toe · 01-17-2014, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMJ

No. He was bragging about how her posts made no sense so I let him know my opinion: her posts were reasonable and spot on IMO. I'm not responding to him anymore. I'm walking away from the hothead... See how that works? The whole argument of this thread.

You can walk away but you said she kicked my arse. You couldn't back that up.

So now you're just saying "her posts were reasonable and spot on IMO."

Heel n Toe · 01-17-2014, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty914s

That's all, go back to posting 50 responses a day to make the same point, over and over again.

I rest my case.

johnsjmc · 01-17-2014, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I can imagine the shooter sitting down in a cold sweat with the realization that he was past his shelf date regarding his responsibilities for CCW.

Did he really just sit there and let the dude bleed out or did he attempt to help render aid?

Good point. It was reported that 2 off duty local nurses administered CPR and first aid while waiting for an ambulance.
The shooter (with his police training) just sat down and waited for the police.
An off duty police officer took the gun from him and one report said he initially resisted giving it up.

speeder · speeder's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty914s

Fintstone, are you related to the retired shooter? I just ask since it seems that this is a very personal situation for you.

All is good in the world, there are crazies but there are also really good people everywhere...

That's all, go back to posting 50 responses a day to make the same point, over and over again.

If I may, I don't think that he's related to the shooter or knows him. Fintstone is a guy who just really likes to debate and he's good at it. He has a specific style that is like a boxer who just hammers away at your kidneys and never gives up. He will wear you down.

He also does not result to name-calling or other childish actions like cartoons and colored text. He's cool-headed and even. My opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate, which is much more challenging to argue than the "right" side. If you ever debated in HS, you know that someone always has to take the other side, no matter what the argument.

70SATMan · 01-17-2014, 09:26 AM

Yep!

EMJ · 01-17-2014, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeder

--snip-- My opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate, which is much more challenging to argue than the "right" side.

I was roped in too deep to stop when I noticed this about 20 pages back!