Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by Goldman23, Oct 11, 2018.
You can't physically assault people.
It ain't self defense.
The target of your anger at being cheated on should be the person who cheated on you. This random dude isn't the one who promised to be faithful, til death do you part. He owes you nothing.
This is more or less my thinking. Kind of looks like self defense the way the TS describes it but he brought the gun there which makes it seem premeditated. Maybe he knew Emmet could kick his ass and had the gun as insurance but in the end it backfired on him.
I guess a key question would be whether or not he typically carries a firearm. I feel like that's the real difference. A guy who always has a firearm isn't necessarily "premeditating". But if he never carries it, it seems more indicative.
From the OP it sounds like self-defense. Wonder what facts the jury considered.
What a stupid thread. Yes.
I agree with most of post here, but at same time as absurd it sound this
Fucking somebody's wife is like play corrida, no matador will blame the bull
Should have killed the wife instead
Marrying a woman named Candy is just asking for trouble.
Yeah, this is the big issue I have with these 'stand your ground' and open carry policies.
It makes it so that you can permanently end an argument because you are armed. And if you have a weapon on you, you are much more emboldened to start shit, or to not try to diffuse shit.
If you are armed, and you approach a guy that is fucking your wife, obviously, you're going to exchange angry words, and that could then lead to a physical altercation. You shouldn't be able to shoot the guy to end the fight.
Preservance of life should be the #1 priority with these cases. If you had a way to diffuse an issue, and you chose not to, then you shouldn't be protected by the law. Bringing a gun to an argument doesn't solve shit. It either escalates the problem and someone gets shot, or the guy backs down, but out of fear, no problem was actually solved.
Kind of like that recent case where that fat father and son shot their neighbor. The moment you pull out a gun, you just escalated shit to nuclear level.
Me personally I mostly like stand your ground but I do think you have a point here, sometimes it leads to stuff like this.
I'm not against the policy in principle, I just don't trust the average Joe to responsibly use the law the way that it was intended to be used.
Guns...(any weapon for that matter) make people feel invincible. And instead of using their words, it's easier to just show their gun. It's the same issue I see with the police. It sounds like an obvious statement, but having guns makes it much more likely that they'll be used.
When you're armed, and you're in an argument with a guy, somewhere in your mind, you're going to be thinking "what if i have to shoot this guy.."
That thought shouldn't be in your head in 95% of any arguments or altercations you find yourself in..especially when it's with a neighbor, or your wife's boss.
Not saying ban guns, but I think the policy is going to get abused by the stupid, assholes, and wannabe tough guys. There should be some sort of way to check , or punish those that would abuse it.
We have too many laws that don't factor in human psychology.
This statement shows your lack of understanding of the term.
A Chad is a male who has a very easy time getting women. Like with anything in life a man being a Chad will be based upon his social enviroment, the male competition around him, his looks and attitiude. In addition, Chad and Timothy are relative terms. What this means is that a guy who is a Chad at a local campus could easily become a Timothy if he was placed in an enviroment with equal or better males than him. So in this instance, this guy would be considered a Chad as he not only got a beautiful wife to pop out 4 kids (1 on the way) but was able to steal another man's woman as a side piece. Meanwhile Timothy works his self to death supporting a wife who is getting dicked by someone else.
Like hell he doesn't. If you willingly sleep with a guy's girlfriend or wife (or boyfriend or husband), then you're an asshole, especially if you're the one who made the advances. That's just logic. The fact that she was the one in a relationship and technically the one who was 'cheating' does nothing to dissolve the other guy of any guilt.
You can't assault or kill people just for being an asshole . Why would another man owe you anything just because your girl is bored and throwing herself at him? She's the one in the relationship, not him. She's the one lying to you and being unfaithful. Take it up with her.
Didn't need to confront the guy.
The wife was a whore, should've just moved on.
Because it shows a lack of respect for someone else's relationship? Common sense really.
And I never said it justified murder, just that the guy had a right to be angry at another man having sex with his woman.
Separate names with a comma.