You just can't help yourself, can you? Yet another post that has jack squat to do with the topic at hand.
It's pretty obvious that you should not own a firearm.
Man rhrows brick and pastor, pastor blows him away
- Thread starter onel0126
- Start date
You just can't help yourself, can you? Yet another post that has jack squat to do with the topic at hand.
It's pretty obvious that you should not own a firearm.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I can't go on trying to discuss things with someone that simply wants to make their own facts up to support their argument.
C
Chuckt
Guest
I already posted it here:
http://forums.somd.com/threads/3042...ows-him-away?p=5585198&viewfull=1#post5585198
It is in the news and the facts from the news support my conclusions.
The man is allegedly accused of having an affair with the man's wife and I think that would make a lot of men mad and want to go visit the pastor. The newspaper reported the body had been moved and police took the pastor into custody.
http://www.vibe.com/2015/10/detroit-pastor-shot-man-after-getting-his-wife-pregnant/
http://www.vibe.com/2015/10/detroit-pastor-shot-man-after-getting-his-wife-pregnant/
The prosecutor's office is involved and though the pastor hasn't been charged yet, does it look ethical to you for the pastor to allegedly get their wife pregnant and then shoot her husband?
Last edited by a moderator:
PsyOps
Pixelated
First of all, I was replying to your “Maybe it wasn't exactly as it was reported.”
Secondly, how does any of this cause you to conclude the minister doesn’t have the right to defend himself against someone trying to threaten his life; or that his actions of shooting the attacker were “out of line”?
C
Chuckt
Guest
If it were just assault, it would be aggravated assault instead of just assault because the pastor allegedly did something.
Usually when you are messing with someone, you caused the person to retaliate and the pastor allegedly killed the man when he did.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-defenses.html
I wouldn't be surprised if a wrongful death lawsuit was filed here.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
The guy doing the assaulting isn't going to be charged with anything ...so it matters not that his assault was aggravated or not.
GWguy
*
I'm sorry... there are just so many things wrong with this.
A pastor, and the instant he felt threatened, he has no issue with opening fire and killing someone in church, during service, with innocents nearby. What about "Thou shalt not kill" ? Can you say "hypocrite" ?
The guy had a brick. Big deal. Is everyone so unable to defend themselves that they can't duck a brick? If it's throw, it's slow moving, you have time to move out of it's way. Once the brick is out of his hand, he's unarmed. If he is in striking range, it's heavy to wield and easy to duck. The first reaction is retaliation with a gun? Not even close to being justified in my mind.
A pastor, and the instant he felt threatened, he has no issue with opening fire and killing someone in church, during service, with innocents nearby. What about "Thou shalt not kill" ? Can you say "hypocrite" ?
The guy had a brick. Big deal. Is everyone so unable to defend themselves that they can't duck a brick? If it's throw, it's slow moving, you have time to move out of it's way. Once the brick is out of his hand, he's unarmed. If he is in striking range, it's heavy to wield and easy to duck. The first reaction is retaliation with a gun? Not even close to being justified in my mind.
PsyOps
Pixelated
This still does not mean you do not get to defend yourself when someone physically threatens your life.
A brick to the head can certainly be lethal. And I always thought that the "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment had absolutely nothing to do with legitimate self defense.
The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder."
PsyOps
Pixelated
The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is referring to murder. Self defense is not murder.
So, a guy breaks into your home wielding a brick. Your child is there. Your first thought is he might smash that brick on your child’s head (which you know could cause death) and you have a gun at your disposal. You do what?
And you’re assuming the minister didn’t believe he might have had more weapons. I know I always make the assumption that someone that wants to harm me will likely have more than one weapon.
GWguy
*
A brick can be lethal. My contention is that you can avoid it.
I'm not sure there are any qualifications in the 10 Commandments for self defense. But I'm an agnostic and don't read the Bible.
C
Chuckt
Guest
There may be mitigating circumstances.
Even though the pastor killed in self defense, it is still a homicide.
I believe there is provocation here and someone should decide whether it is adequate provocation.
Were all four bullets needed for self defense or is it murder?
Could have just as easily been 8 or 9. His trigger finger might have been weak...lack of practice.
GWguy
*
That's not the event under discussion. That's a different scenario. Each different scenario will have a different response.
One bullet is self defense. 4 or 5 or 6 is intent to kill. In my mind, intent to kill is the same as murder, no longer just self defense.
And it is my firm contention that it does not matter how good a "ducker" I might be. When attacked I will defend myself.
I would agree that once the brick has been thrown and missed it's intended target, that is not then necessarily the time to start pumping bullets in to the attacker...unless he's got another brick and/or continues to be on the offensive.
Neither of those is true. Not even close. You've never taken a defensive handgun class, ha ya?
GWguy
*
Yup.
Pffft. One thing I know for certain is that nobody is EVER taught to "Shoot to wound" or "shoot 'em one time and then wait and see what happens".... There is no such thing as "shooting to kill" either.
You aim for center mass and you squeeze the trigger until the threat is clearly stopped/down/ended.