Reply #77: sometimes you assume that people are bright enough to grasp the principle on their own... [View All]

[NorthernSpy]

A couple of years ago (I believe it was), a kid with a gun showed up at his high school and began firing away.

The principal was in his office when he heard the shots. He got up, left the building, went out to the parking lot, and retrieved his rifle from the trunk of his car. He then re-entered the school building and subdued the shooter.

Applying the above argument to this situation would mean that the principal was not acting in self defense but escalating the situation, for the sole reason that he left the building and came back armed (with a "deadlier" weapon than the kid had).

Utterly ridiculous analogy. I would not have thought that I'd have to spell this out, but anyway, here goes:

The Luke Woodham case was a mass shooting incident committed by a determined attacker who was out to kill. The Jena convenience store incident was an argument in which the white man involved walked off, went to his truck, got a gun, came back, and pointed the weapon at the black high school students he had exchanged words with.

Would the Luke Woodham mass murder incident have ended if principal had gone to his car and driven away? No. That's why going back into the school with his own weapon was in legitimate defense of self and others.

Would the Jena convenience store incident have ended if the man had just gotten in his truck and driven off? Yes. That's why his actions DO constitute escalation rather than self defense. That remains the case even if we leave aside the consideration that the boys were more seriously threatened by HIM and his deadly weapon, and that when they had taken that weapon into their possession, they retreated -- further revealing his claimed fears of "threat" as groundless.

Did I really have to go and spell that out for you? Really?

Regarding the tussle-with-the-gun incident in Jena, I personally believe all parties involved are at fault, based on the (limited) information given on this thread and in press articles.

How magnanimous of you. In other words, the the white guy is guilty because he shoved a gun in some kids' faces. And the black kids are guilty because they disarmed a white man, which embarrassed him.


:argh: