shoelyesses
Banned
- 5,770
- 1,292
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
we werent there but having common sense, wordly knowledge and just experience in the world ppl have pretty much an idea of what happen. Ppl with weapons... who constantly keep a weapon on them for most part have it as some "courage juice" and gives ppl this sort of billy bad ****... confidence they normally dont have with out the weapon. is the video of the bully with the bat.
And how were the teens going to have an intention of intimidating him exactly? with loud music... with a weapon... oh wait they didnt have a weapon.. and they had no preconcieved notion about the man or what kinda person he was...
the white man on the other hand had a preconcieved notion albiet a stereotypical and racist one based solely on them playing loud music, the type of music they were playing, and the fact they were young and BLACK. And add to the fact that he owns a gun and had it with him at a convience to use it. I owe a gun... and ppl buy guns with the intent to use them period... You may hope you wont have to use it.... but no one buys a gun solely to not ever use it... So he had the intemediating factor due to the fact he had a gun... he had the upperhand because he whether the other guys had a gun or not, he had a way at the very least to defend or protect himself regardless of what situation arises...
The teens on the other hand did not have this because they had no weapon, or a means to defend/protect themselves regardless of of any situation. Having a gun undisputively way of defending yourself regardless of any situation be it someone who want to attack you using physical force, a bat a knife whatever... a guy with just his hand cannot say the same. Also having a gun pretty much ensures that you have the intimidating factor.. because outside of a potential attacker having a gun themselves... a person (unless blindsided, or caught off gaurd unaware/element of suprise) know they have the intimidating factor upperhand in any situation.
Plus lets suppose these teens (highly unlikely) came to the gas station with the mindset of hating white ppl etc.. and wanting to inflict damage hurt to a random white person... What would be their motive/reasoning in doing so? And in this case what issue/quams would they have with said guy,,, if according to him he was just there minding his own, and had no direct/indirect contact with them...?
He also stated he did this in response to them... Buy what was it he was responding to? You may say they was teasing provoking him... ok playing devils advocate. Why would they do this, and what reason would they have done this...? They could oonly do this based on something he did/said/actions he did? You cannot react to something without an act being done correct? So if he was doing nothing aka not acting... how could the react to him ths him respponding?
Thats like saying i answered a person who said nothing.. It makes no sense. So in this case he had to have made some sort of act... indirect/direct towards them in order for them to react whether positive or negative. For him to respond to the reaction. His shooting was a response to a reaction by them based on a ACTION by him.
So now we get into what could they or anyone do to a react to a person action to deem a response of killing a person. The reports said nothig of them reacting to the action in a physical manner... so what we are left with is they had to have reacted verbally/ or by gestures... To his initial action.
So what can a person say verbally/ or do in a form of gestures and or no contact physical elements (ie they are bigger stronger etc..) for a person to kill them?
Cause you dont shoot 9 shoots to scare/intimidate a person... one shot pretty much accomplish that. 9 shots was intended to cause harm and or kill. So for the ppl who say they understand why he did what he did... I would like a case and instance in which you would intend to kill someone solely based on words they said, gestures they may of made, or no contact physical elements... ?
