Who are you talking about? I'm the one who didn't know they were black....:confused:

 

I thought Al Sharpton was quoted as saying he didnt know the perps were black.

Who are you talking about? I'm the one who didn't know they were black....:confused:

 

All he saw was "Al Sharpton" and "black."

All he saw was "Al Sharpton" and "black."

 

:lol2:

 

Saw where Al Sharpton has spoken out against this.

 

I didn't even realize the "perps" have been young black males. He said something to the tune of, "We wouldn't stand for this if it were happening to us, so we need to make it stop."

 

Not only that but just another example for how messed up this young generation is.

All he saw was "Al Sharpton" and "black."

 

 

:lol: :lol:

All he saw was "Al Sharpton" and "black."

 

HA HA HA

I hope your kidding and dont think that.

How would anyone be able (a jury I suppose) to determine if I felt that my life was being threatened? Evidence that I had been struck from behind. Now if I shot the dude in the back as he walked away, perhaps I could see it.

 

And I think that is the situation you'd be looking at. Once your attacker hits you and walks away (which is how the "game" is played), I would say the imminent threat to your life has passed, and you would simply be retaliating. The law allows you to defend yourself, not to exact revenge.

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

 

I'm just stating the black letter law.

And I think that is the situation you'd be looking at. Once your attacker hits you and walks away (which is how the "game" is played), I would say the imminent threat to your life has passed, and you would simply be retaliating. The law allows you to defend yourself, not to exact revenge.

I understand. And that's where I'd be in trouble. I'm not wired to turn the other cheek worth a poop.

I am mostly afraid for my boys as they walk every where. I have been jumped before and I have a spider sense for trouble now. They are so naive, that I really worry. As for self defense, you can only meet force w/ the force that met you. That being said, if you are sucker punched, I'd think that you are in fear for your life and it would be a very gray area regarding use of deadly force.

 

Eh, probably the biggest variable is what state you're in. I think there's a reason we've not seen a "Knock Out Game - Texas" yet. God Bless Texas.

And I think that is the situation you'd be looking at. Once your attacker hits you and walks away (which is how the "game" is played), I would say the imminent threat to your life has passed, and you would simply be retaliating. The law allows you to defend yourself, not to exact revenge.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to think this. If someone had been hit...hard enough that the hitter was trying to knock them out, person attacked goes to ground but is still conscience pulls a gun and shoots. Even if the attacker is walking away I think it could easily be argued that the shooter still feared for his life, felt the attacker could/would come back to "finish the job" once they found out he was not incapacitated and shot to protect themselves. I'd agree with that. I mean, we can't assume the hitter was just trying to knock the person out and go about their merry way one way of the other. If I'm in that situation and was hit from behind, but not knocked out, my first thought isn't going to be "oh someone's just playing the knockout game, I'll be fine now and my attacker is done". My first instinct would be I am in trouble, my life's in danger and I need to do what I can to protect it. There are consequences to every action. Hitting some unsuspecting person from behind hard enough to knock them out and possibly cause severe damage or even death...the consequence for the attacker could easily be getting shot in the face...or the back. And they would have no one to blame but themselves.

I wouldn't be so quick to think this. If someone had been hit...hard enough that the hitter was trying to knock them out, person attacked goes to ground but is still conscience pulls a gun and shoots. Even if the attacker is walking away I think it could easily be argued that the shooter still feared for his life, felt the attacker could/would come back to "finish the job" once they found out he was not incapacitated and shot to protect themselves. I'd agree with that. I mean, we can't assume the hitter was just trying to knock the person out and go about their merry way one way of the other. If I'm in that situation and was hit from behind, but not knocked out, my first thought isn't going to be "oh someone's just playing the knockout game, I'll be fine now and my attacker is done". My first instinct would be I am in trouble, my life's in danger and I need to do what I can to protect it. There are consequences to every action. Hitting some unsuspecting person from behind hard enough to knock them out and possibly cause severe damage or even death...the consequence for the attacker could easily be getting shot in the face...or the back. And they would have no one to blame but themselves.

 

And I don't disagree with you. If i'm attacked and still have enough of my wits about me, there's a good chance I'm going after the guy with not so good intent whether he is walking away or not. I'm also not an attorney or officer of the law, so I really don't know how it would play out in court. My thought is it would be tough to prosecute someone who reacted with deadly force as a result of being attacked in this situation, regardless of whether the attacker was walking away or not.

And I don't disagree with you. If i'm attacked and still have enough of my wits about me, there's a good chance I'm going after the guy with not so good intent whether he is walking away or not. I'm also not an attorney or officer of the law, so I really don't know how it would play out in court. My thought is it would be tough to prosecute someone who reacted with deadly force as a result of being attacked in this situation, regardless of whether the attacker was walking away or not.

 

Yep, agree with that for sure.

I'm just stating the black letter law.

 

Serious question on the black letter law though, if you are knocked out and someone robs you, like is being reported in some of these cases, wouldn't the commission of a felony like robbery change the game up as well?

 

I'd imagine that in lots of states, the protecting your person/property from robbery would justify the shooting.

Public hangings should be brought back, invite the public. Crime rate drops. :banana:

Stupid fools. They better knock me plum out, because I would have to introduce them to the shoot you straight in the face game. You bunch a spineless punks. There, I feel better now. :taz: