Is this a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by chris155au, Jul 15, 2020.

  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do we know that he had "absolutely no interest in ceasing the engagement after the initial blow?" Also, don't forget that the shooter was the initial aggressor and McGlockton was responding, although it was purely verbal aggression, which you might point to as significant. Would you see it differently if it was physical aggression that McGlockton was responding to - as in the guy attacking McGlockton's girlfriend?
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,677
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Posture and body language at the time of the incident. The deceased was engaged in the physical act of hiking up hit pants and stepping forward in a heavily aggressive manner, indicating he intended to continue the attack further.

    Under united states law, it does not matter what may have been said, as words never justify a physical response. One is never allowed to physically retaliate on the basis that they do not like what someone may have to say, no matter how hateful or unkind it may be.

    Had the aggression actually been physical rather than verbal, it would have been a different matter entirely. But it was not. Words do not amount to violence, despite what certain modern era individuals believe and claim to the contrary.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  3. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    38,019
    Likes Received:
    15,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He was asked about it during the hearings. Democrats knew he was lying and tried to get him to change his testimony.
    Clapper stuck to his Big Lie. He has not been investigated or interviewed by the FBI or examined by a grand jury.
     
  4. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    7,986
    Likes Received:
    2,954
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if I vote for a Democratic presidential candidate and Congressional candidate, and for a Republican gubernatorial candidate and Senate candidate, that's fraud?

    Given the voting model above, is this voter a Democrat or a Republican?
     
  5. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well such a crime couldn't be connected to someone. Anyway, I can't see how it is FRAUD. I mean, the vote would just be illegitimate.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
  6. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, so you disagree with the law in this case?

    Regardless of the distance between the aggressor and their target?

    Isn't the key that he backed off once he saw the gun? Couldn't the killer have continued to just aim the gun at the guy? Is it really likely that the guy would have closed distance to reengage? I guess if he was suicidal, but even then, we both know that the killer could have engaged and killed the second distance began to close.
     
  7. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,677
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not the law of the case that can be disagreed with, but the malicious prosecution on the sole basis the defendant was white while the assailant was black. Had the one who had committed physical assault, this matter would never have gone to trial. More and more in the united states there are efforts at prosecution of what are clear cut cases of self defense, simply because the deceased was a black individual.

    Correct. The entire notion that a single step back served to deescalate the entire incident and signal and absolute surrender with no intention of reengaging is completely devoid of even the most basis level of logic and common sense thinking.

    From a logical standpoint, the case as it was presented makes as much sense as claiming an individual who is being physically assaulted is allowed to use deadly force for their own defense, but can only legally do such at the exact moment when the physical assault is being committed, but not in the brief periods in between the blows as the assailant is pulling their fist back to land another blow. Essentially that deadly force is only legal at the exact instant physical injury is being suffered, but not in between them.

    Law enforcement officers are trained to observe the twenty one foot rule for a reason. That being any suspect who is within twenty one feet of a law enforcement officer, can travel that distance and attack before said law enforcement officer can draw their sidearm and discharge it. Even if the sidearm has already been drawn, the suspect can still engage the law enforcement officer faster than a discharge can be guaranteed.



    The proximity between the two participants meant an absolute, confirmed threat still existed, as the deceased had already proven conclusively, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he was both willing and physically able to engage in unjustified, unprovoked physical assault to a potentially lethal degree. His mere presence constituted a continued threat of reengagement.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
    chris155au likes this.
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you know that this was the "sole basis?"

    I assume that you meant to say, had the one who had committed physical assault been WHITE, this matter would never have gone to trial.

    That wouldn't surprise me, but I would want to see the data.

    Earlier you referred to "the physical act of hiking up hit pants and stepping forward in a heavily aggressive manner, indicating he intended to continue the attack further." He hiked up his pants before the guy drew his gun, right?

    Well this isn't a legal standard is it? I assume the law doesn't consider "the brief periods in between the blows as the assailant is pulling their fist back to land another blow" as disengaging. I assume that nobody has been charged with killing someone in such a circumstance. And surely you can see a distinction between taking a step back like McGlockten and "the brief periods in between the blows as the assailant is pulling their fist back to land another blow."

    Why is this relevant if McGlocken's killer was already drawn? This video doesn't demonstrate when already drawn, only PRE-draw.
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,677
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, based on other cases that have occurred in the united states, both prior to this incident and in the wake of it.

    Correct.

    No data, only observations relating to national headlines released by the united states. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was ruled as justified self defense. But when the black community threatened violence and riots if George Zimmerman was not arrested and charged, a special prosecutor was appointed to bring charges that could never be sustained in a court of law. Ahmaud Arbery, Rayshark Brooks, all of whom were engaged in criminal activity at the time of their death, all justifiably killed for their actions. Yet in each and every case the black community has threatened violence and riots because the one who was killed was black, despite their actions being indefensible, and in each case the defendant is prosecuted even when there is no legal justification for such, in what is nothing more than an effort to appease the angry mobs to keep them from engaging in even more violence.

    Correct.

    Such is why the prosecution of Michael McGlockton was devoid of any basic measure of logic under united states law.

    From a logical standpoint there is no difference made, as there was no logical justification for the decision to prosecute, based exclusively on the momentary pause between the defendant drawing his firearm, and discharging it, all while the assailant was both physically present, and physically able to reengage in violence at any moment.

    It is relevant to demonstrate the close physical proximity of the deceased posed a continued threat, since he possessed the physical means of reengage in violence at any moment without warning, and had already demonstrated the mentality of being prone to random, unjustified acts of violence.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At 21 feet? Doubtful. Unless the muscle controlling the cops trigger finger doesn't function properly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2020
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,677
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet the twenty one foot rule exists for a reason, and is a part of standard training for law enforcement, meaning it is valid precedent for regarding all violent encounters in close proximity. Therefore it must be acknowledged, addressed, and utilized when discussing such encounters and developments. The deceased, Markeis McGlockton, had already demonstrated a predisposition towards disproportionate use of force, as he believed physical violence was justified on the basis of not liking what someone had to say to his girlfriend. His entire approach in the moments leading up to the assault demonstrated that no threats of violence were being made against said girlfriend, as his approach was calm and deliberate prior to the physical assault being committed.

    Despite what many may claim, words to not amount to violence, and no degree of words said ever justifies one being the first to commit physical violence in response/retaliation to what is heard.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, because of the possibility of not being drawn.
     
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,677
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is such relevant? Either to this particular discussion, or the original discussion pertaining to the individuals whose private property was invaded after the front gate was broken down so rioters could gain access to property they had absolutely no legal right to be present on?
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You realise that you're the one who brought up the McGlockton case, right?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,677
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the purpose of demonstrating just how nuanced the law on self defense can be in the united states, and how easily one can find themselves the guilty party rather than the victim in the span of a single second. All to demonstrate just why the notion of discharging a firearm for any purpose other than the deliberate use of deadly force against an assailant is not a sound approach and should never be considered viable by anyone.
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    22,790
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, you first mentioned it in response to this:
    So what about just brandishing?
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020 at 7:32 AM
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,677
    Likes Received:
    7,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unknown at present time.
     

Share This Page