White boy questioning who I am, and where I am is “talking crazy”
Black man in KC charged with 2nd degree murder for shooting/killing woman that was stealing his car
- Thread starter 8WON6
- Start date
Fam I'm not an anonymous internet nerd like you are.
I've posted my pic. People know exactly where I'm from, down to addresses. People know the schools I went to, etc.
I could pass any of that info off to the dozens of people from the same city as me, and I guarantee it all checks out. We can ban bet that, if you want.
You could never do that, for obvious reasons.
So again, what the fukk hood are you from, where a shooting is the same across the board regardless of race?
Fred.
David_TheMan
Veteran
stealing is morally wrong, using force to defend your property is morally right and I celebrate this brother for protecting his property
I disagree.
His life would be 100x better right now had he not shot that person.
Material things aren’t worth a life.
If killing someone to “protect your property” was morally right and legal, majority of killings would be justified.
David_TheMan
Veteran
His life is in jeopardy because of a corrupt system.
I find it funny how you excuse the person who victimized this man, stole what he worked hard for, and you try to act like its okay or justified for stealing as if they should have no consequence to their actions.
then you try to demonize the man protecting what he owned.
Using your logic, Rosa Parks was wrong for not getting her ass up, because it caused her to get arrested.
Right?
You glossing over the fact he was already hit with the car. How do you or he know if she's backing up to hit him again or not?
Its easy to weigh those ethical dilemmas you got when the situation is over.
I didn’t excuse anyone of anything.
Again. It is illegal and immoral to kill people over material possessions. We moved on from that a long time ago.
It’s that simple.
No. This is dumb. Stay on topic.
I don't give a fukk about fitting in here, half you cats are playing characters. Which is why nobody knows anything about you.
Fred.
David_TheMan
Veteran
No its not illegal to kill people over property or for your own personal safety.
I disagree that it immoral as well.
We have not moved on from that, maybe in your family you have no morals and think its okay to steal, a lot of us don't feel that way.
Your logic can't even hold, should let you know how foolish your statements are.
He shot and emptied the entire clip as the person rode away.
Sure I understand things happen in the heat of the moment and that should be considered when he’s charged, but ultimately he shouldn’t have killed that person.
This way of thinking is gonna get yourself and anyone living with you killed. I hope you don't have any children having this mentality, because you are officially food out here.
Dude is going to jail
there’s no law that says you can shoot a fleeing person in the back because they stole your shyt.
Just like we were all upset at this guy A black teen ran out with a $2 beer. Then a Tennessee store clerk followed him and shot him dead - CNN
and glad he got charged.
All I’m saying is I keep it consistent. Wrong is wrong
David_TheMan
Veteran
He was arrested and he is being charged.Dude is going to jail
there’s no law that says you can shoot a fleeing person in the back because they stole your shyt.
Just like we were all upset at this guy A black teen ran out with a $2 beer. Then a Tennessee store clerk followed him and shot him dead - CNN
and glad he got charged.
All I’m saying is I keep it consistent. Wrong is wrong
If he has a good defense lawyer he should be able to get out of this.
Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Chapter 563
563.031. Use of force in defense of persons. — 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:
(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or
(3) If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
--------
563.041. Use of physical force in defense of property. — 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
----
The only person wrong is the thief, and quite frankly thieves deserve to die.