• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Woman shoots man in gas station.

When someone is threatening you with a gun at close quarters, you charge them. When she initially had the gun pointed at the ground, he didn't even make an attempt to take it from her.

How do you account for her casual stroll to her trunk? For staying right on top of him with her gun? For casually finishing up her business? For leaving the scene? You would have done NONE of those things. For the pocket knife being found "in his clothing"?

Having an argument with someone doesn't allow that someone to shoot you. This stinks.

Your message is an example - so common and akin to how many reviewed the GZ matter - of looking back and concluding her behavior was not perfectly correct - therefore somehow is at fault.

Here's a few comments in response. While it was foolish to point the gun at the ground, that may have been legally correct. Once you point a gun AT someone, you need the exact same justification as if you legally had a right to shoot at that point. If not, it is felony assault with a deadly weapon. So if she got it out to make it certain she's wants him to back off because he was becoming fearful to her, that may have been the only thing she could legally do at that point.

I don't agree with the view that if someone has a gun then you get to slug the person. I do not agree that someone having a gun means the other person is threatened by it justifying violently assaulting the person with the gun. To the contrary, I think if a person has a gun and tells the person to back off the person should back off, not attack.

He didn't try to take the gun? No, he slugged her with a haymaker. YOU say he could because she threatened him with a gun. Did she? If someone is intimidating you, harassing you and in a way making you fearful, if you say "back off, I have a gun" and show that you have one, does that person than get to physically assault you? That seems what you are claiming.

As for leaving? That isn't a crime. With other people around that may have been exactly the correct thing for her to do. Maybe a friend or relative there would shoot her in retaliation.

Without sound, I suspect the conversation was him increasingly harassing her and ignoring her telling him to leave her alone as he kept coming back. At some point she pulled out a gun and in some fashion told him words to the meaning of "back off asshole or I'll blow you away." He should have just stepped back, but instead he slugged her in a way to try to knock her down and she then fired. Apparently he also had a knife out at that point.

What alternative action do you think she should have taken? Gotten in her car? That's a trap. A person is virtually defenseless in a car. Run away? Then he, anyone could just steal her car or anything in it. Run somewhere else, leave her car and everything exposed to theft (plus away from her defensive firearm) and wait an hour for police to show up?

In my own view, if a woman tells a man who is a stranger "stay away from me" that is what he does. If he won't, or keeps coming back, in my opinion it is entirely legitimate for her to pull a firearm and repeat the command. Whether or not the man has a weapon. If he approaches again I think she may and should shoot - and certainly if he attacks her.

Again, a person having a firearm or holding a firearm does not justify then assaulting the person. I have no idea where people get that idea. I don't think her less than perfect tactical behavior changes that, nor do we know the words being said along the sequence.
 
That strikes as a very odd question. :shrug: w/e
And yet...not at all. Whats 'odd' is your refusal to answer basic questions. Then again...not at all odd.
 
And yet...not at all. Whats 'odd' is your refusal to answer basic questions. Then again...not at all odd.
Tell you what. If you will explain the relevance of what I do or do not want to pretend, I will answer that question about whether I want to pretend that particular things or not.

For bonus points, it'd be nice if you would explain how what I want to pretend / do not want to pretend is a "basic question" in re this issue.
 
Tell you what. If you will explain the relevance of what I do or do not want to pretend, I will answer that question about whether I want to pretend that particular things or not.

For bonus points, it'd be nice if you would explain how what I want to pretend / do not want to pretend is a "basic question" in re this issue.
Tell you what...when you learn how to have a discussion rather than ask a bunch of silly inane questions get back to me. And for bonus points, do us both a favor and dont bother. You decided to jump into a discussion NOT involving you, asked a question, got an answer, asked another stupid question, got an answer, and then went for the trifecta and followed yourself up with yet another stupid question. Your value to the 'discussion' is nil. So...situation normal.
 
Tell you what...when you learn how to have a discussion rather than ask a bunch of silly inane questions get back to me. And for bonus points, do us both a favor and dont bother. You decided to jump into a discussion NOT involving you, asked a question, got an answer, asked another stupid question, got an answer, and then went for the trifecta and followed yourself up with yet another stupid question. Your value to the 'discussion' is nil. So...situation normal.
put me on ignore
 
The sequence really isn't clear as we don't know what was being said. From the appearance, she was justified. BUT, like GZ, we don't know what we don't know, and we don't know what was being said.

I guess some think waving an umbrella at someone's face isn't threatening.

What is curious to me on these topics in general, however, is an apparent view of many is that if someone is unarmed and being aggressive, the only thing a person can do is let themselves get physically assaulted by that person - though then has a right to fight back without a weapon OR not use a weapon until already being violently assaulted and so severely you already have suffered major injuries, and then hopefully the person isn't determined to beat and stomp you to death and you live, hopefully not permanently disfigured and disabled and then in the hospital get a police report number.

This duty to allow yourself to be assaulted, crippled, disfigured or killed - but don't worry, there is a 50/50 chance the person will get caught and might even do some time in jail - strikes me as truly absurd. But maybe that's just me. If one person it aggressively getting in another person's face, and that other person says "get away from me!" - that person should do exactly that. I could not possibly count how many times I've told some guy "Get away from me or I will hurt you" who was getting in my face with aggressive words towards me. I meant exactly what I was saying.

I believe a person has a right to demonstrate a deadly weapon to demonstrate "get away from me or I will hurt you" - with that NOT justifying violently assaulting the person with the weapon, and that a person has a right to use force including deadly force to KEEP from being assaulted in the first place, not having to wait until already being assaulted in which usually the person couldn't use the weapon and it as likely if not more to be used against the person with the weapon.

Nor do I see any requirement that she act is a frantic, desperate manner to prove something to 3rd party observers. Each person reacts differently. Some people visibly panic and act frantic in stress. Others become notably emotionless. I fall into that latter category. Maybe she does too.
 
She must have been thinking about Zimmerman verdict at that point of time.
 
There is a tendency of people to think anyone who does things differently then they would have done in the same situation (or think they would have) must be irrational, guilty of something or otherwise were wrong. Rather than just the person handled the situation differently.

Personally, it seems obvious that the woman SHOULD have gotten out of there ASAP after shooting him - for her and everyone else's safety. What was she supposed to do? Stay there taking a SWAT stance swinging her gun back and forth shouting "EVERYONE KEEP THEIR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!"

For all she know, that man's son, father, wife, cousin, best friend, gang were also there and would shoot her. What would you do if you saw someone - man or woman - shoot your son or father repeatedly - and you had a gun? Nothing? Figure she's not going to shoot him anymore?

Those who condemn her for leaving? Leaving was the right thing to do - and certainly not illegal.

Should she get out of there and immediately call the police? Maybe she should have circumstantially, but certainly didn't have to. Not only was she NOT required to incriminate herself and not required to give ANY statement to the police - none, zero, nada - I imagine talking to the police and spending hours with them isn't what she planned nor wanted to do that day.

People have come to see police in ways that I don't and in ways the law doesn't require. I don't have to report crimes to the police. I don't have to report myself to the police for the purpose of reporting something for the purpose of proving I not a criminal that event - for which I make myself my own worse witness having given rise to the investigation myself from the start.

The moment she would have called the police saying "I shot someone" she had incriminated herself and was a witness against herself - recorded and that could be used in court. ANYTHING she said - even how she said it - would be examined with a microscope to see if her words were 100% perfect, 100% literally correct, and even if her voice tone, emotions and attitudes were 100% what is considered ideal. If she is charged, that phone call 100% will be used against her - thus a phone call she didn't have to make. Besides, she could reasonably figure other people would call 911 for an ambulance - something she also had no legal duty to do.

When I was in a violent confrontation it the past, it was extremely rare that I could then contact the police. Doing so usually would not only be unwise and/or pointless, but also would greater then interfere with the next few hours of my life in a way I don't have to voluntarily put myself into.

If she should have called anyone, it should have been an attorney, but she probably doesn't have one, so it entirely reasonable she ask for advise from friends. It is NOT illegal or misconduct to not want to talk to the police, not report yourself, and not instantly incriminate yourself.
 
Last edited:
You're as civil as ever.

The clip of the witness does not provide a "when."
So, to me, the when is still not a settled matter.

You're free to make w/e assumptions you like.

Listen to the clip again. He's not making an assumption other than to assume the eye witness was telling the truth.
 
Listen to the clip again. He's not making an assumption other than to assume the eye witness was telling the truth.
It seems identical to the last time I listened to it.
the clip still doesn't show the witness describing when the guy had the knife in his hand.
:shrug:
 
You're as civil as ever.

The clip of the witness does not provide a "when."
So, to me, the when is still not a settled matter.

You're free to make w/e assumptions you like.
Civil?
Figures.
You can't get the information correct so you blame the other.


Yes it is a settled manner.
The witness said.

John Thomas - "Ain't too many people ain't know that he had the knife in his hand, and he had the umbrella in the other hand."

If you don't understand, let me help you out.
The witness to the event said he had a knife in his hand at the time. The witness, speaking about the incident that happened, is the when.

I mean, unless you somehow think he was talking about some other time far removed from the incident he is relaying. :doh
 
It seems identical to the last time I listened to it.
the clip still doesn't show the witness describing when the guy had the knife in his hand.
:shrug:



"Ain't too many people ain't know that he had the knife in his hand, and he had the umbrella in the other hand."

"She seen him with the knife and she took her gun out..."
 
It seems identical to the last time I listened to it.
the clip still doesn't show the witness describing when the guy had the knife in his hand.
:shrug:

Further, from the written report:

"He came at her with a knife. So she came out of her trunk with a gun and started shooting him."
 
Then he pushed her.
:naughty
He hit her.
He wound back and struck her. It clearly wasn't a push even though she was pushed by it.


He made contact with her -- so if he'd had a knife in his hand, she'd have been cut.
:sigh:
Think about it.
You can have a closed hand around the knife and still hit a person with the hand.


Cops confirmed he had a pocket knife "in his clothing." That's hardly indicative of a knife in his hand.
And the cops were not eye witnesses were they?
The eye witness puts the knife in the guy's hand.


She's a nut job.
She very well may be.
But even nut jobs are allowed to protect themselves from other nut jobs with a knife in their hand. A nut job who already hit them once.
 
Civil?
Figures.
You can't get the information correct so you blame the other.
lqtm
Yes it is a settled manner.
The witness said.
John Thomas - "Ain't too many people ain't know that he had the knife in his hand, and he had the umbrella in the other hand."
that's pretty much what I heard.
The witness to the event said he had a knife in his hand at the time. The witness, speaking about the incident that happened, is the when.
I mean, unless you somehow think he was talking about some other time far removed from the incident he is relaying. :doh
You have ruled out that he was speaking about one of the other various bit of verbal altercation. I don't find enough evidence to do so.
As you assume, he may be speaking about the moment before the woman shot. That's possible. But it's also possible that he was talking about one of the other moments we saw on the footage. Personally, I would not consider the moments we saw on the footage to be "far removed" in time from the shooting. But, ymmv.
 
"Ain't too many people ain't know that he had the knife in his hand, and he had the umbrella in the other hand."
"She seen him with the knife and she took her gun out..."
Ahh, I see. That came after the part that was referenced previously. That is much better at substantiating the time period.
Further, from the written report:
"He came at her with a knife. So she came out of her trunk with a gun and started shooting him."
Thanks for finding better info.
 
Woman allegedly kills armed man at gas station on Houston's south side | abc13.com
This came across the news last night, the video is clear that the man
struck her after she was pointing the rifle.
I am thinking self defense, but not sure why she got close to him
before he hit her.
Feedback?

Seems to me she had ample time to get in her car and leave instead of taking a gun out of her trunk. There is a theory which states people will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk and it apparently doesn't just apply to economic theory;)
 
Seems to me she had ample time to get in her car and leave instead of taking a gun out of her trunk. There is a theory which states people will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk and it apparently doesn't just apply to economic theory;)

The duty to remain defenseless and flee. If not, then you are guilty and responsible. Thugs and bullies should rule and be protected in their right to do whatever they want. :roll:
 
Unlike the GZ case, this incident is BOTH about self-defense AND stand-your-ground. She had not duty to surrender where she was at to him.
 
The duty to remain defenseless and flee. If not, then you are guilty and responsible. Thugs and bullies should rule and be protected in their right to do whatever they want. :roll:

Yeah, and do you think this will promote more violence or less? Someone bothers the crap out of you so you just shoot them dead and then plea self defense. Unless someone has proof otherwise you can't be arrested.
 
It is better that you laugh quietly.


You have ruled out that he was speaking about one of the other various bit of verbal altercation. I don't find enough evidence to do so.
As you assume, he may be speaking about the moment before the woman shot. That's possible. But it's also possible that he was talking about one of the other moments we saw on the footage. Personally, I would not consider the moments we saw on the footage to be "far removed" in time from the shooting. But, ymmv.
:doh
Are you purposely being obtuse?
Do'h!
The words he chose to express what he witnessed. Duh!
What he witnessed. The altercation.
Why the hell do you think he said, "Ain't too many people ain't know that he had the knife in his hand, ...", when describing the event?
 
Yeah, and do you think this will promote more violence or less? Someone bothers the crap out of you so you just shoot them dead and then plea self defense. Unless someone has proof otherwise you can't be arrested.
Why would you bother the crap out of someone if you thought they might shoot you?
 
Back
Top Bottom