Mandeville "Hero" to be Prosecuted?

[bigtattoo79]

This is the same logic that blames the victim when his home is burglarized and firearms are stolen.

Same logic that blames a woman for getting raped because she dressed provocatively.

(Please forgive any grammatical or speling errors. I didn't do that gud in english class.)



Hear! Hear!




Apparently you don't understand liberalism/conservatism.

Conservatives have traditionally taken care of their neighbors. They are generous when their neighbors are in need, and won't hesitate to wade into a fight to help their neighbors against evil. They are chivalrous.

Liberals expect the government to solve all of their problems. They don't get involved. They walk away when they see their neighbor striving against evil. They are cowardly.

My stance has become my taxes take care of enough people and I'm sick and tired of giving money away. I don't want free **** and I wanna keep what I earn. Before I go out helping others I'm gonna help myself that's just how it's gonna be.

So my point is he helped others where is everyone helping him? He got the short end of the stick and no one is gonna do a damm thing for him. Think that store clerk is gonna max out his credit cards helping him? Nope! I won't help people that won't help themselves. If that store clerk had jumped that counter I may have got involved but if the person being attacked won't stand up why should I?


Edit to add: at the rate y'all are helping y'all's neighbor he's gonna need a gov appointed lawyer lol.

 

[bigtattoo79]

I read through hall this. This is what I have learned.

This community, filled with what I typically think are like minded people, with similar goals, understandings, and hearts is actually filled with about half of people that will not, and don't find it smart, to help each other.

Its not "hero" to attempt to grab a license plate. That's damn near a obligation as a member of a civil society based around law and order.
WTF is wrong with some of yall? Regardless of this case (I am not familiar with the case), numerous people have mentioned grabbing a LP# is this huge offense that "asked for trouble". Have yall never called 911 for a wreckless driver? Suspicious person/vehicle??? The neighbors of the San Bernardino shooters didn't... that lady driving on I10 last year who followed the drunk driver for 7miles didn't... people died because of it.

I would absolutely HATE to meet some of you and have in some form or another mine or my families lives reliant on you in any way. It would be better knowing those around me were a bunch of libtards, at least I would know what to expect from them.

You people are showing to be more and more sided with the scum we should all be advocating against. Detaching yourselves from realities and your fellow citizens is shameful.

I dont think its a libtarded mindset to look out for out neighbor and hope he responds in kind. Sounds pretty much the opposite. A lib would tell the government to force their neighbor to protect them.

This is the same logic that blames the victim when his home is burglarized and firearms are stolen.

Same logic that blames a woman for getting raped because she dressed provocatively.

(Please forgive any grammatical or speling errors. I didn't do that gud in english class.)



Hear! Hear!




Apparently you don't understand liberalism/conservatism.

Conservatives have traditionally taken care of their neighbors. They are generous when their neighbors are in need, and won't hesitate to wade into a fight to help their neighbors against evil. They are chivalrous.

Liberals expect the government to solve all of their problems. They don't get involved. They walk away when they see their neighbor striving against evil. They are cowardly.

The Conservatives that I know do not look to others for help, do not blame others for their own problems, do not judge others for their choice of not helping when the problem doesn't require it.

Reading what you guys believe makes me realize why conservatives are losing to the dems so bad election after election.

Good god help yourselves and quit depending on others.

 

[Whitebread]

The Conservatives that I know do not look to others for help, do not blame others for their own problems, do not judge others for their choice of not helping when the problem doesn't require it.

Reading what you guys believe makes me realize why conservatives are losing to the dems so bad election after election.

Good god help yourselves and quit depending on others.

I don't expect anyone to help me, and I don't expect the government to make someone help me, but I do judge the charactor of a man by how he treats others in need. I too find myself sick and tired of being fleeced by the government to provide all kinds of things I at one point did without because I couldnt afford it, but again I judge the charactor of a man by how he treats his neighbors in need. When I see a need I do what I can to help. If thats grunt labor or a skill I posess or cash out my pocket or something I own and dont need any more.

I'm not really sure what about this you object to.

And conseritism doesnt win because in rarrly gets on the ballot. When it gets on the ballot and the conseritive can articulate his message and a bunch of mind numb idiots arnt turning an election into a reality show it usually wins.

- - - Updated - - -

The Conservatives that I know do not look to others for help, do not blame others for their own problems, do not judge others for their choice of not helping when the problem doesn't require it.

Reading what you guys believe makes me realize why conservatives are losing to the dems so bad election after election.

Good god help yourselves and quit depending on others.

I don't expect anyone to help me, and I don't expect the government to make someone help me, but I do judge the charactor of a man by how he treats others in need. I too find myself sick and tired of being fleeced by the government to provide all kinds of things I at one point did without because I couldnt afford it, but again I judge the charactor of a man by how he treats his neighbors in need. When I see a need I do what I can to help. If thats grunt labor or a skill I posess or cash out my pocket or something I own and dont need any more.

I'm not really sure what about this you object to.

And conseritism doesnt win because in rarrly gets on the ballot. When it gets on the ballot and the conseritive can articulate his message and a bunch of mind numb idiots arnt turning an election into a reality show it usually wins.

 

[323MAR]

So do we:

1) Follow him outside and get his LP? (could **** the dude off)

2) Lock the door? (him bashing the door down would show how crazy he really was)

3) Let him come in and out as he wants? (sooner or later it MAY get out of control)

2) Lock the door? This is exactly what you do in that situation. Lock out the 103M until LE arrives.

 

[bigtattoo79]

I don't expect anyone to help me, and I don't expect the government to make someone help me, but I do judge the charactor of a man by how he treats others in need. I too find myself sick and tired of being fleeced by the government to provide all kinds of things I at one point did without because I couldnt afford it, but again I judge the charactor of a man by how he treats his neighbors in need. When I see a need I do what I can to help. If thats grunt labor or a skill I posess or cash out my pocket or something I own and dont need any more.

I'm not really sure what about this you object to.

And conseritism doesnt win because in rarrly gets on the ballot. When it gets on the ballot and the conseritive can articulate his message and a bunch of mind numb idiots arnt turning an election into a reality show it usually wins.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't expect anyone to help me, and I don't expect the government to make someone help me, but I do judge the charactor of a man by how he treats others in need. I too find myself sick and tired of being fleeced by the government to provide all kinds of things I at one point did without because I couldnt afford it, but again I judge the charactor of a man by how he treats his neighbors in need. When I see a need I do what I can to help. If thats grunt labor or a skill I posess or cash out my pocket or something I own and dont need any more.

I'm not really sure what about this you object to.

And conseritism doesnt win because in rarrly gets on the ballot. When it gets on the ballot and the conseritive can articulate his message and a bunch of mind numb idiots arnt turning an election into a reality show it usually wins.

That man made a choice to try and help and he has to live with it. I wish him the best and hope he can have a normal life from this point forward.

I think for the most part people getting involved in verbal and or minor altercations that don't involve them is a bad choice.

Until the civil lawsuits are a thing of the past I will not involve myself in "most" situations that don't involve me or my family. If I'm less of a man for not wanting to lose everything I've worked so hard to give my family then so be it.

You guys get mad when people judge the shooter but turn around and judge others for their choices that's what I object to.

 

[JBP55]

I missed the part about someones life being endangered. The aggressor was also unarmed. I see very little justification for deadly force.
The perp was not committing a felony, so the intervention by someone OCing was not necessary. In the end, a lawfully armed citizen injected himself into a minor altercation that resulted in deadly force.
He could have avoided this altogether by simply being a witness and waiting to see IF the altercation with the clerk would turn deadly. Instead, he needlessly provoked a new confrontation that led to deadly force. If you are going to carry a gun as a citizen, then you have a duty to avoid petty confrontations with idiots.

This post was written by a reasonable and prudent person who understands the use of deadly force and conflict resolution in LA. which includes LA. RS 14:18 through LA. RS 14:22.

 

[SpeedRacer]

Seems the real issue people have is that he was open carrying, seeing how it's mentioned and/or he's referred to as things like "OC guy" in every opinion against him.

I'm not personally a fan of open carry for a multitude of reasons, but does the act of open carrying a gun in itself make a difference in this story? What if he was concealed carrying and did the same thing with the same outcome? Just a guy trying to get a license plate after witnessing a crime (wouldn't that be part of being a "good witness") who drew his weapon at the time he had no other option...would that be different? Or what if he was unarmed? And ended up getting the **** beat out of him and/or killed? For trying to get a license plate?

It seems that people feel like he escalated the situation right off the bat just by having the gun visible. But legally speaking is that true? From my understanding of the story he didn't escalate the situation to deadly force (ie actually drawing his weapon) until after he was *likely* justified.

If nothing else, the case is interesting in that aspect. Open carrying is obviously swaying people's outlook on the whole scenario, and will likely do so during the grand jury and trial if it comes to that. And is one more reason for me to think it's a bad idea. Justified or not, you inherit a certain perception of "looking for trouble" or "playing cop" that will make defending your case that much harder.

 

[whitsend]

This post was written by a reasonable and prudent person who understands the use of deadly force and conflict resolution in LA. which includes LA. RS 14:18 through LA. RS 14:22.

I'll say it again, once the perp backed the shooter into a corner and was attempting to take his gun, RS 14:20 A. (1) was applicable.

Based on the facts that we the public have, the shooter appears to have attempted repeatably to get away from the perp and get the perp to stop attacking. He only discharged his firearm when he was left with no other choice.

Now is there is some information that we don't have...........

Very few here are even making the argument that the shooting was not justified, so I'm not sure what information 323MAR and yourself have that the rest of us are missing.

In hindsight, would the shooter have made different choices? I'm sure he would have. But what normal person would think that just writing down someones license plate number would make that person attack you?

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback when we weren't there.

What would I do in the same situation? I don't know. But I would hope that all of us would help if we felt it was absolutely necessary, even if the point at with it become necessary is different for each of us.

 

[rtr_rtr]

Seems the real issue people have is that he was open carrying, seeing how it's mentioned and/or he's referred to as things like "OC guy" in every opinion against him.

I'm not personally a fan of open carry for a multitude of reasons, but does the act of open carrying a gun in itself make a difference in this story? What if he was concealed carrying and did the same thing with the same outcome? Just a guy trying to get a license plate after witnessing a crime (wouldn't that be part of being a "good witness") who drew his weapon at the time he had no other option...would that be different? Or what if he was unarmed? And ended up getting the **** beat out of him and/or killed? For trying to get a license plate?

It seems that people feel like he escalated the situation right off the bat just by having the gun visible. But legally speaking is that true? From my understanding of the story he didn't escalate the situation to deadly force (ie actually drawing his weapon) until after he was *likely* justified.

If nothing else, the case is interesting in that aspect. Open carrying is obviously swaying people's outlook on the whole scenario, and will likely do so during the grand jury and trial if it comes to that. And is one more reason for me to think it's a bad idea. Justified or not, you inherit a certain perception of "looking for trouble" or "playing cop" that will make defending your case that much harder.

^^^^^

 

[charlie12]

I know one damn thing. I'm better at getting plate numbers than him. I've done it quite a few times and never had to shoot anybody.

 

[Pas Tout La]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever read on this site.

 

[Emperor]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever read on this site.

You must be new here!

 

[DAVE_M]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever read on this site.

Not even close.

 

[Emperor]

Seems the real issue people have is that he was open carrying, seeing how it's mentioned and/or he's referred to as things like "OC guy" in every opinion against him.

I'm not personally a fan of open carry for a multitude of reasons, but does the act of open carrying a gun in itself make a difference in this story? What if he was concealed carrying and did the same thing with the same outcome? Just a guy trying to get a license plate after witnessing a crime (wouldn't that be part of being a "good witness") who drew his weapon at the time he had no other option...would that be different? Or what if he was unarmed? And ended up getting the **** beat out of him and/or killed? For trying to get a license plate?

It seems that people feel like he escalated the situation right off the bat just by having the gun visible. But legally speaking is that true? From my understanding of the story he didn't escalate the situation to deadly force (ie actually drawing his weapon) until after he was *likely* justified.

If nothing else, the case is interesting in that aspect. Open carrying is obviously swaying people's outlook on the whole scenario, and will likely do so during the grand jury and trial if it comes to that. And is one more reason for me to think it's a bad idea. Justified or not, you inherit a certain perception of "looking for trouble" or "playing cop" that will make defending your case that much harder.

Good points! I have always maintained that open carry should not be disparaged in the grand scheme of things because it could lead to an undesired cultural norm. Example? Pro-concealment guys bash open carry as a pro-gun sin, open carry gets branded as archaic and unnecessary, anti-gun idiots push for it's repeal, then because they will never stop; they set their sights on conceal carry. Why allow people to have loaded guns concealed? That is a safety hazard. Let's make them keep the guns separate from the magazines while they conceal carry. Add to this example any completely asinine suggestion you've ever heard by anti-gun dummies. Like, metal detectors in theaters, or gun free zones in public parks!

Don't think that can happen? Talk to people that live in states where there guns need to be stored in locked storage, or where they can't have loaded magazines in the pistols while traveling, or all the other moronic **** they have out there.

The open carrying of this guys weapon had nothing to do with this incident, except that the moron apparently tried to wrestle it away and paid with his life.

 

[Request Dust Off]

Seems the real issue people have is that he was open carrying, seeing how it's mentioned and/or he's referred to as things like "OC guy" in every opinion against him.

I'm not personally a fan of open carry for a multitude of reasons, but does the act of open carrying a gun in itself make a difference in this story? What if he was concealed carrying and did the same thing with the same outcome? Just a guy trying to get a license plate after witnessing a crime (wouldn't that be part of being a "good witness") who drew his weapon at the time he had no other option...would that be different? Or what if he was unarmed? And ended up getting the **** beat out of him and/or killed? For trying to get a license plate?

It seems that people feel like he escalated the situation right off the bat just by having the gun visible. But legally speaking is that true? From my understanding of the story he didn't escalate the situation to deadly force (ie actually drawing his weapon) until after he was *likely* justified.

If nothing else, the case is interesting in that aspect. Open carrying is obviously swaying people's outlook on the whole scenario, and will likely do so during the grand jury and trial if it comes to that. And is one more reason for me to think it's a bad idea. Justified or not, you inherit a certain perception of "looking for trouble" or "playing cop" that will make defending your case that much harder.

I just go ahead and assume the other side (1 or more) will have a gun or other weapon. Essentially in this day and age just looking at someone directly can escalate matters. So it is pretty much a if I am not prepared to go all the way I don't get started with someone mindset. With a total stranger you are dealing with a wild card. Once you make initial contact they may decide to escalate and never back down.

The last two times I encountered situations I could involved myself in I decided not to and just dialed 911 and let LEO deal with it.

1st situation was a guy trying to break in a back door on a property next to where I do some work on a sporadic basis. Sure enough the got immediately stupid with the officer. So you know he would have gotten stupid with me.

2nd was a guy laying down in the gutter I passed on the street. I figured he was either injured, intoxicated or mental. Any way it went I wasn't going to solve it.

So more and more I will just be the guy dialing 911 and let LEO handle it. It sucks to waste the officers time if wrong. I prefer to have the officer know I called it in and then get a confirmation that yes it should have been called in.

But yeah be rest assured If I shoot anyone a percentage of gun owners will got straight to throwing me under the bus without hearing any of the facts. Problem is what gets reported in the papers are not the facts. It doesn't change my opinion that there are a good number of gun guys that love to call 'Bad Shoot'.

 

[Whitebread]

But yeah be rest assured If I shoot anyone a percentage of gun owners will got straight to throwing me under the bus while making stuff up and ignoring all facts that do not fit their I'm the "I'm the smartest man in the room" narrative. Problem is what gets reported in the papers are not the facts. It doesn't change my opinion that there are a good number of know it alls that love to call 'Bad Shoot'.

I took the liberty...

 

[BigP623]

^

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[DAVE_M]

• Bad Shoot? No.
• Could it have been prevented? Maybe.
• Is there a lot of butthurt in this thread? Yes.

 

[Whitebread]

You know I was sitting thinking, "why do I come on here and rip into a handful of people. It doesnt make friends, but if I put someone off because I call them on their Bull, thats not the type of friend I want anyways." The very reason I'm so passionate about this is so many people are afraid to do the right thing because all these Monday morning QB's end up making the good guy into the ne'er-do-well. Its no wonder good people say nope its not worth getting mixed up in. I can sympothize with that line of thinking and thats not the mindset me need to encurage or promote in our society. As good people we should be able to help each other and not have to fear what happens after that.

 

[Emperor]

• Bad Shoot? No.
• Could it have been prevented? Maybe.
• Is there a lot of butthurt in this thread? Yes.

In the spirit of ever burgeoning bureaucracy we should have people fill out these when applicable: