Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporty
It wasn't the shooter's job to play parking maid to the public and he's had a history of doing so. He initiated conflict when he decided to get into someone's face over a parking spot. At any rate, it's funny how minor offenses are deemed worthy of the death penalty these days.
|
I haven't gotten so much as a bruise or a scrape in my entire life from someone talking...... ever.
The guy could have walked out of the store, seen his wife was safe and sound inside the car, approached the shooter and asked what the hell the problem is and then told him to beat it and mind his own business then continue on with his day and both these guys would of had breakfast at home the next day.
I am not saying I agree with the shooting, never have. My point all along is that words are words and physical harm is physical harm. The dead guy is the one who skipped any verbal interaction and went directly to violence and in doing so had violence enacted upon himself. Does the level of violence matter? There is always a winner and a loser, or in this case two losers. Sure the guy never deserved to get shot, but in the same token the other guy never deserved to get shoved.
The guy who started the violence is responsible for the violence, it's pretty cut and dry. The only thing that went wrong for the dead guy was the level of violence used to respond to his action was more than anyone else had shown him in the past. It's not like he was a hero and died while saving someone's life. If the shooter had the gun out and was pointing it at the guys wife, that would have been a totally different story in which case I would have fully supported not only a shove but a bullet in the head, but that isn't the case.