How's This For Polite

[ezelisko 0]

Should have pistol whipped him. Much cooler and a better notch on the belt.

[speedz99 145]

Again, I'm not condoning the shooting, but you don't seem to know how real life works.I can cross 15 feet and have a knife in you before "leave me al-" is out of your mouth.

There's a large difference between 15 and 5 feet. There's no excuse for not screaming something, anything, as a warning. Unless someone is running at you full speed, you can afford that 10 feet to give a warning before shooting them. If only to cover your own ass.

[Spademan 94]

Should have pistol whipped him. Much cooler and a better notch on the belt.

"Butt-stock to the FACE!"

[Spademan 94]

There's a large difference between 15 and 5 feet. There's no excuse for not screaming something, anything, as a warning. Unless someone is running at you full speed, you can afford that 10 feet to give a warning before shooting them. If only to cover your own ass.

ROFL. 5 feet? Had a lot of hand gun training, have you?Hehe, if I am 5 feet from you and mean to do you harm, and you haven't aimed and shot, you're fucking dead. You realize that's one step, right?A large difference between 15 and 5 feet? Hehe, you mean less than 1 second from a full stop? Take the Tueller drill as an example:"The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m). So he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]"If I am 15 feet from you, I am approximately ONE SECOND away from you. That's from a dead standstill. Haha. The guy in the story was in motion. "10 foot warning". Haha. Oh, dear.21 feet is considered imminent danger. But ya, go ahead and scream stuff or say "Hey buddy, you better not come any closer because me and this here gun that I am swinging around in your direction, in slow fucking motion apparently, are gonna shoot your right in your stomach"... When, in reality the guy can close that distance as you take in the breath to scream, from a full stop.I have no idea what the douche-bags demeanor was, did he have his hands in his pockets, how fast was he walking... anything. All mitigating factors that would go into what I thought about the shoot.I do know he was more than close enough to shoot, depending.

[speedz99 145]

That's a nice drill, but it's for an armed attacker that's running at you in order to stab you in the face. The situation at hand was with an unarmed verbal abuser who was not running. Totally different situations.Your gun is already aimed and ready to go against an unarmed verbal abuser walking towards you. Fifteen feet is too far to shoot if you haven't at least tried to vocalize that he better stop.

[Spademan 94]

That's a nice drill, but it's for an armed attacker that's running at you in order to stab you in the face. The situation at hand was with an unarmed verbal abuser who was not running. Totally different situations.Your gun is already aimed and ready to go against an unarmed verbal abuser walking towards you. Fifteen feet is too far to shoot if you haven't at least tried to vocalize that he better stop.

1. The test was from a full stop. He was less than one second away. From a full stop. You realize that "running" or "not running", he was 1 second away if he wants to be... from a full stop, which he wasn't. He was already in motion. Towards a guy he turned around and followed. While berating.2. You have no idea where his hands were, unless you're privy to information I'm not. 3. Once again, you aren't discussing this as a reality. In your mind, all of this happens step by step and it's a slow thing that you are examining. You are pretending like this cold hard hitman slowly turned around, checked the mans hands and pockets, leveled the weapon, and fired a precise methodical shot.Sorry, that isn't real life. Even further, for all you know, the guy grabbed his gun hoping not to use it, turns around and see's this ******* is all the way out to his car, red faced, hands in his pockets, less than one second away and coming at a brisk pace, still berating him... scared shitless turns and fires off a round.

[speedz99 145]

1. The test was from a full stop. He was less than one second away. From a full stop. You realize that "running" or "not running", he was 1 second away if he wants to be... from a full stop, which he wasn't. He was already in motion. Towards a guy he turned around and followed. While berating.

He's 15 feet away, not running. If he starts running, we have more than enough time to pull the trigger. That takes a fraction of a second, obviously, as long as you're ready for it, which you should be if you're brandishing a weapon.

2. You have no idea where his hands were, unless you're privy to information I'm not.

All either of us can go by is the story told by the asshole that apparently loses his good manners when other people don't display theirs. And, in his story, we're talking about him walking, speaking in a normal tone of voice, and not threatening violence. No, that's probably not exactly how it happened, but it's the scenario outlined, so it's all we have to go on. And, in that scenario, 15 feet is too far to fire without warning.

3. Once again, you aren't discussing this as a reality. In your mind, all of this happens step by step and it's a slow thing that you are examining. You are pretending like this cold hard hitman slowly turned around, checked the mans hands and pockets, leveled the weapon, and fired a precise methodical shot.Even further, for all you know, the guy grabbed his gun hoping not to use it, turns around and see's this ******* is all the way out to his car, red faced, hands in his pockets, less than one second away and coming at a brisk pace, still berating him... scared shitless turns and fires off a round.

Once again, you're making assumptions about the sitation. I totally agree that your description is how it could have happened. But that's not what's in the police report at the moment, so it's inconsequential unless the shooter ever gives his side of the story. But anyway, I'm not pretending that he was methodical at all. I'm saying that, if he was, the situation might have ended without someone almost getting killed. The guy was a lethal combination of socially incompetant and twitchy.

[Spademan 94]

Ok, let's try this one more time.

He's 15 feet away, not running. If he starts running, we have more than enough time to pull the trigger. That takes a fraction of a second, obviously, as long as you're ready for it, which you should be if you're brandishing a weapon.

First of all, you have no idea if he was running, doing jumping jacks, standing still, crab-walking, hovering or doing a silent, beautiful pantomime that told the story of a young man and young woman meeting and falling in love one cold night in a New York Subway. We'll get to that in a minute. And again, your last sentence leads me to believe you don't know shit about guns or personal combat. Seriously, you talk about a fluid situation as if you think it happens like the Matrix. And again you put forth this calm draw down and shoot scenario, which has fuck-all to do with the story, and purport it as how it happened.

All either of us can go by is the story told by the asshole that apparently loses his good manners when other people don't display theirs. And, in his story, we're talking about him walking, speaking in a normal tone of voice, and not threatening violence. No, that's probably not exactly how it happened, but it's the scenario outlined, so it's all we have to go on. And, in that scenario, 15 feet is too far to fire without warning.Once again, you're making assumptions about the sitation. I totally agree that your description is how it could have happened. But that's not what's in the police report at the moment, so it's inconsequential unless the shooter ever gives his side of the story. But anyway, I'm not pretending that he was methodical at all. I'm saying that, if he was, the situation might have ended without someone almost getting killed. The guy was a lethal combination of socially incompetant and twitchy.

Yes, all either of us can go by is the story. And yes, someone started making assumptions about the situation... you... and then I made other assumptions about the story - which are just as likely as yours with the information provided... even by the guy with a vested interest in looking good - to show why you're account of the issue isn't nearly as clear as you say it is.Here is the guy's account:"A Douglasville man said he was shot after trying to give another man a lesson on manners. Police are still looking for the shooter.Jay Rodgers and his family were on their way home from a Tim McGraw concert last month when they stopped at an Atlanta Shell station so his niece could use the bathroom. He said he felt insulted after a man he encountered ignored a polite gesture.“I opened up the door for a gentleman. He walked in, and I quietly said, ‘Why don’t you say thank you for holding the door open?’” When the man didn’t respond, Rodgers said he followed him outside and asked him to say "thank you" again, but the man kept quiet.“He went to his car, put whatever he purchased inside it, and he pulled out a gun and shot me from about 15 to 16 feet away from me,”Can you show me where he said he was "walking"? Can you show me where he says he didn't have his hands in his pockets? Can you show me where he says he was using a "calm voice" after the very first instance? He said he asked quietly when he first held the door open. He said absolutely nothing about his tone or demeanor on the next time. Or multiple times. You see, we have no idea what happened, first, in between he held the door open for the guy - it is strangely silent after the shooter went inside - and when he left. What happened inside? Did the asshole go inside with him or just wait outside? Silent on the issue. Am I supposed to assume nothing? If the asshole waited outside, that's all the more threatening. Some dude admonishes you on some petty nonsense then is waiting outside when you leave? Is he waiting for you? What the fuck. Anyhow, the guy walks to his car, ignoring this possible lunatic waiting outside for him. Then the guy "follows him" outside and "asks him" to say thank you again. In what tone. You say calmly, but you're just making shit up. That isn't in the story. Not even with the guy telling the story himself. He added "quietly" for the first time, but is silent on his tone or demeanor on the second. Was he walking toward him? Was he running? Was he just standing there, quietly, at 15 feet as the man put his groceries away. Was he just standing there staring? Neither of us have any clue. He could be running at the guy for all we know. He could have his head inclined silently in the lords prayer.He could have been walking briskly toward the guy closing quickly, hands in his pocket. The story gives absolutely no indication, the asshole is very vague. So, having no idea, there is no way you can make the claim that 15 feet is way too far to fire without warning. It is much closer than many trained professionals consider imminent threat. These are my closing arguments. You make a closing argument and then Cane, being a lawyer, can rule.Oh shit. Cane already gave an opinion in this thread and it was contrary to mine. Also, you're a Jew, and Cane is a lawyer so he's probably a Jew, or at least a Jew-lover.And I'm half Negro, so Cane being a lawyer probably wants me in jail anyway.Oh well, I'll put my faith in the law and accept his ruling.

[ShakeZuma 585]

so wait, if the guy asking for the apology was running toward the shooter, getting ready to attack him, then why did he flee the scene?

[speedz99 145]

Oh god...so many words for this early in the morning. I'll try to get back to you.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Aaah...the guy was threatened enough to shoot him, but not threatened enough to turn and put stuff into his car.In summary:Mr. Manners - nice gesture for opening the door- very douchy for berating other guy- stupid for following stranger to his carHobo With A Gun (and a car)- psychotic- not a people person- should not be licensed to carry a gun (or should be in the military)

[digitalmonkey 929]

Also, I'm quite certain this whole story is a fabrication designed to illustrate how people will NEVER agree on anything.Or...how cool would it be if this was actually a scenario from What Would You Do?

[Spademan 94]

so wait, if the guy asking for the apology was running toward the shooter, getting ready to attack him, then why did he flee the scene?

He just shot somebody?By your logic here, every person involved in a hit-and-run was maliciously trying to hit the person they hit. I mean, nobody would flee a scene where they think they did an unavoidable thing, right?Except: a bunch of times. Him leaving proves nothing.

Aaah...the guy was threatened enough to shoot him, but not threatened enough to turn and put stuff into his car.

Aaah, you live in the movies where the asshole was trying to kill the guy all the way to the car. Impossible that he escalated things as the guy put the groceries down.Ya, impossible he was coming at him faster now that the guy-who-didn't-recognize-kindness was about to "get away".People never escalate things. It's always either calm or violent. Ya.That's how life works.You have no idea. Nobody does. That's the point.Maybe you saw the whole thing by remote viewing though, and are able to fill in details absolutely not present in the story.

[digitalmonkey 929]

He just shot somebody?By your logic here, every person involved in a hit-and-run was maliciously trying to hit the person they hit. I mean, nobody would flee a scene where they think they did an unavoidable thing, right?Except: a bunch of times. Him leaving proves nothing.Aaah, you live in the movies where the asshole was trying to kill the guy all the way to the car. Impossible that he escalated things as the guy put the groceries down.Ya, impossible he was coming at him faster now that the guy-who-didn't-recognize-kindness was about to "get away".People never escalate things. It's always either calm or violent. Ya.That's how life works.You have no idea. Nobody does. That's the point.Maybe you saw the whole thing by remote viewing though, and are able to fill in details absolutely not present in the story.

It's also possible that the guy who got shot was actually the guy who refused to apologize and turned the whole story around so he wouldn't appear rude for refusing to say thank you and dumb for shooting himself instead of the actual guy who was berating him. Typically, we can only base our opinion on what we know and my opinion from what I know about this was summarized in my previous post.Now, go kill someone in the name of freedom.

[Spademan 94]

It's also possible that the guy who got shot was actually the guy who refused to apologize and turned the whole story around so he wouldn't appear rude for refusing to say thank you and dumb for shooting himself instead of the actual guy who was berating him. Typically, we can only base our opinion on what we know and my opinion from what I know about this was summarized in my previous post.Now, go kill someone in the name of freedom.

You're a babbling idiot. Make more sense so I can at least address a valid point.

[digitalmonkey 929]

You're a babbling idiot. Make more sense so I can at least address a valid point.

My point is that your argument is based on the fact that nobody really knows what happened. You seem to be under the impression that the guy wanting an apology had a knife...could have had a knife...was matrix-like with the ability to attack a guy with a gun from 15 feet away even though he apparently had plenty of time to attack him prior to the shooting.Please, call me more names...it makes me feel better. Especially when the names I'm being called more accurately describe the person saying them.

[Spademan 94]

My point is that your argument is based on the fact that nobody really knows what happened.

Yup. Particularly given the glaring lack of detail in the the guy's story. Sweet, you got something right.

You seem to be under the impression that the guy wanting an apology had a knife...could have had a knife...was matrix-like with the ability to attack a guy with a gun from 15 feet away even though he apparently had plenty of time to attack him prior to the shooting.

1) Yup. Could have had a knife. More important, the guy who he was moving toward, the guy he was following to his car while berating him, the guy who for all we know he was waiting outside for (the story, again, fails to be clear)... the guy he was aggressively pursuing (oh, something inherent in the story) might have thought he had a weapon. 2) As has been explained, which you stupidly fail to understand though it's been pointed out numerous times and even sourced, it doesn't take a matrix-like ability to get to someone from 15 feet, you drooling retard. It takes less than a second from a full stop. 3) Your idea that "he had plenty of time to attack him" prior to the shooting disregards reality and how fights escalate, assumes a bunch of shit and in general provides evidence for how poorly you think.

Please, call me more names...it makes me feel better. Especially when the names I'm being called more accurately describe the person saying them.

Your concern is noted.

[Dubey 1,035]

If we were allowed to open fire every time somebody who may or may not be holding a weapon, walks in our direction in a manner which may or may not be aggressive, and who may or may not be a trained tactical fighter, and who may or may not be intending to do us harm, this world would be a pretty shitty place.Is it inside the realm of possibility that this guy was planning to attack the guy he was following? certainly. Does that justify pulling out a gun and shooting him, just in case? You be the judge.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Yup. Particularly given the glaring lack of detail in the the guy's story. Sweet, you got something right. 1) Yup. Could have had a knife. More important, the guy who he was moving toward, the guy he was following to his car while berating him, the guy who for all we know he was waiting outside for (the story, again, fails to be clear)... the guy he was aggressively pursuing (oh, something inherent in the story) might have thought he had a weapon. 2) As has been explained, which you stupidly fail to understand though it's been pointed out numerous times and even sourced, it doesn't take a matrix-like ability to get to someone from 15 feet, you drooling retard. It takes less than a second from a full stop. 3) Your idea that "he had plenty of time to attack him" prior to the shooting disregards reality and how fights escalate, assumes a bunch of shit and in general provides evidence for how poorly you think.Your concern is noted.

My point is that you are assuming just as much as those who disagree with you only you seem to require name-calling to make your point(s).The guy who pulled the trigger was a psychopath. Spin it any way you want, soldier.

[ShakeZuma 585]

He just shot somebody?By your logic here, every person involved in a hit-and-run was maliciously trying to hit the person they hit. I mean, nobody would flee a scene where they think they did an unavoidable thing, right?Except: a bunch of times. Him leaving proves nothing.

hit and runs are accidents while pulling out a gun and shooting somebody is quite intentional. therein lies the huge difference. I mean, 9 times out of 10 if somebody shoots somebody, sure, they're gonna be out of sorts, but they had the state of mind to know that they were in danger hence going through the action of pulling out the gun and shooting the person, so they're also going to know they're in the right and have much more to lose by fleeing than by staying and pleading their case. a hit and run, however, happens as a totally unexpected accident, which will cause panic, which in turn would cause irrational decisions, much more so than the intentional shooting of a person. is it possible that the dude really felt like he was in danger, shot the guy, then ran? yeah sure. but not bloody likely.please don't let this stop you from your and digitalmonkey's argument though; I'm enjoying reading that much more than participating.

[timwakefield 68]

hit and runs are accidents while pulling out a gun and shooting somebody is quite intentional. therein lies the huge difference. I mean, 9 times out of 10 if somebody shoots somebody, sure, they're gonna be out of sorts, but they had the state of mind to know that they were in danger hence going through the action of pulling out the gun and shooting the person, so they're also going to know they're in the right and have much more to lose by fleeing than by staying and pleading their case. a hit and run, however, happens as a totally unexpected accident, which will cause panic, which in turn would cause irrational decisions, much more so than the intentional shooting of a person. is it possible that the dude really felt like he was in danger, shot the guy, then ran? yeah sure. but not bloody likely.

I agree that it very likely wasn't self-defense, although it could have been.But I don't think that fleeing the scene of an actual self-defense shooting like that is nearly so incriminating, or should be unexpected. Sure in his head it's self-defense, and he's a pretty reasonable guy and knows a little bit about the law, but it would be a helluva lot easier to just drive away and never hear about it ever again, versus getting arrested and investigated, and possibly even sent to trial (if the police or DA don't like his story), and then possibly even sent prison. There's almost zero chance of him not getting arrested right then and there, whether it was self-defense or not (unless maybe he shot an armed-robber or something extremely heroic). He has so much more to lose in the short run by staying.The shooter could also be acting in self-defense but be involved in other criminal activity (drugs in the car, warrant out for other crimes, illegal weapon, etc). That's perhaps a less-ethical reason for fleeing, but it still shouldn't make him seem obviously-guilty.

[Spademan 94]

If we were allowed to open fire every time somebody who may or may not be holding a weapon, walks in our direction in a manner which may or may not be aggressive, and who may or may not be a trained tactical fighter, and who may or may not be intending to do us harm, this world would be a pretty shitty place.

This would be a great point if you were arguing against anyone but yourself. Nobody in this thread has advocated any such nonsense. The technical term for this is straw man. See, when I say, "I'm not condoning the shooting, necessarily, as I don't have the details. But it's not as easy as, 'just mutter and drive away'" and, "Again, I'm not condoning the shooting" and, "I have no idea what the douche-bags demeanor was, did he have his hands in his pockets, how fast was he walking... anything. All mitigating factors that would go into what I thought about the shoot" that in no way even hints at the made up position you've propped up and defeated soundly. Shitty place, indeed. Glad we got that hypothetical you've made up out of the way. Rounding up all the Jews and gassing them would also be bad, so we should point that out as well.

Is it inside the realm of possibility that this guy was planning to attack the guy he was following? certainly. Does that justify pulling out a gun and shooting him, just in case? You be the judge.

Yup, that's exactly right. And my entire point. It is well inside the realm of possibility. Which is why idiots making claims of certainty about it are idiots.Speaking of which:

My point is that you are assuming just as much as those who disagree with you only you seem to require name-calling to make your point(s).

No shit. Are you dense?The difference is: I'm making assumptions that show why declarative statements based on other assumptions about how the shooter was crazy, a psychopath or even necessarily in the wrong are fucking stupid. I'm saying you cannot make a judgement on the issue either way.I very much doubt you'll see what I'm talking about because:

The guy who pulled the trigger was a psychopath. Spin it any way you want, soldier.

You're one of the biggest idiots about it. You have no idea if he is a psychopath, but, like an idiot, you declare it over and over. And then, to compound your embarrassment, you twice claim that I'm a soldier. And even try to use it in a disparaging way.Haha. You're having difficulty being right about anything.

hit and runs are accidents while pulling out a gun and shooting somebody is quite intentional. therein lies the huge difference. I mean, 9 times out of 10 if somebody shoots somebody, sure, they're gonna be out of sorts, but they had the state of mind to know that they were in danger hence going through the action of pulling out the gun and shooting the person, so they're also going to know they're in the right and have much more to lose by fleeing than by staying and pleading their case. a hit and run, however, happens as a totally unexpected accident, which will cause panic, which in turn would cause irrational decisions, much more so than the intentional shooting of a person. is it possible that the dude really felt like he was in danger, shot the guy, then ran? yeah sure. but not bloody likely.

1) "I mean, nobody would flee a scene where they think they did an unavoidable thing, right?" was the important part. It addressed the accident vs self-defense distinction.2) I'm going to need to see citations on someone fleeing the scene of a justifiable self-defense shooting being "not bloodly likely". Because, it seems to me you have zero data on that and are just making it up to support your point. I'd also like to see the data of a guy on probation for using weed, or drunk driving, or... well, anything, and how likely they would be to stick around after justifiably shooting someone. Or better yet, on parole for anything.I have the feeling you won't have that data available either. 3) Even if you had all the data, and it showed that only 1 in 10 regular people would flee the scene, 3 in 10 on probation for anything would flee, and 8/10 people with warrants for anything in the world would flee... it still would say absolutely nothing as to whether this guy fled a justified shooting.Since you have no idea in what category he falls or where.But, while it fails, you're making a better show of yourself than digmonk. So there's that.

[Spademan 94]

1 Members: speedz99This oughta be good. Cane, get ready to rule!

[speedz99 145]

These are my closing arguments. You make a closing argument and then Cane, being a lawyer, can rule.

I still don't have the time to address that point by point. I'll just say that you keep saying I don't know what happened, but neither do you, and we're both in the same argument here, so you saying that doesn't prove either of us right or wrong. I'm arguing he could have waited, which is certainly possible. You're arguing that he was within his rights to shoot, which is also possible. I still think that he probably erred on the side of shooting too early, if the actual situation was somewhere in between "calm discussion" and "ranting lunatic sprinting at him". You're probably going to say that you're not arguing he should have shot, just that we don't know he shouldn't have shot. I'm fine with that, though it certainly feels like you're arguing that it was a good shooting regardless of the exact circumstances if the target was 15 feet away.

2) As has been explained, which you stupidly fail to understand though it's been pointed out numerous times and even sourced, it doesn't take a matrix-like ability to get to someone from 15 feet, you drooling retard. It takes less than a second from a full stop.

I tend to doubt that "but he might have started running at me" would be a valid defense for shooting someone who was standing still 15 feet away from you, plus you're still ignoring the fact that it takes a tiny fraction of a second to pull the trigger of a gun that's pointed and ready to fire at a target.

[Spademan 94]

At this point I can only conclude that you are suffering from confirmation bias at this point. You came to a conclusion early and you're defending it with points that have already been addressed and debunked fairly thoroughly. Your argument has crossed into the blatantly unreasonable category as far as I can tell. I could see the initial impression based on what I assume to be no experience with guns, or being attacked, training for such things, how things actually go under these conditions ect. Also based on the natural human revulsion at violence and whatnot. But I think I've laid it out pretty clear how a lot of what you are saying is flatly assumed, and how some of it is simply wrong, and the points are almost entirely ignored. Let's take a look:

I'll just say that you keep saying I don't know what happened, but neither do you, and we're both in the same argument here, so you saying that doesn't prove either of us right or wrong. I'm arguing he could have waited, which is certainly possible. You're arguing that he was within his rights to shoot, which is also possible. I still think that he probably erred on the side of shooting too early, if the actual situation was somewhere in between "calm discussion" and "ranting lunatic sprinting at him". You're probably going to say that you're not arguing he should have shot, just that we don't know he shouldn't have shot.

Though you qualified it at the end, and you could have just left the entire first paragraph off. Frankly, it shows what I'm talking about when I say confirmation bias. At no point in the thread, not in any single post or combination of posts, did I "argue that he was within his rights to shoot." In fact, I stated categorically, unequivocally that I "wasn't condoning the shooting" that I "couldn't say it was a good shoot or not", that "I don't have enough information". I said it multiple times.And every single time I provided a possible scenario was in direct response to someone drawing absolute conclusions based on their assumptions of what happened. Every single time. At no point did I say my scenarios were what happened, what probably happened, what must have happened... nothing. I was pointing out that the information that other people were making declarative statements about was not present. And other scenarios were just as likely. The progression:1. Cane said something about how the guy should have just muttered and got in his car and drove away. Or punched the guy. I said there may have been factors that could mean it wasn't that easy. One of the biggest being how close 15 feet is.2. Dubey said that he could have just pointed his gun and said some long ass sentence. I explained that 15 feet isn't as far as he thinks it is. I could stab you before you can get two words out. (Someone mentioned a "trained" guy or something... training has nothing to do with it. Anyone can get to you in under a second.). 3. You came in and said there was a big difference between 15 and 5 feet. You said a 10 foot warning was in order. This was absolutely wrong. And frankly it's ridiculous. I explained how even trained professionals can consider 21 feet to be imminent danger. 4. You responded with a made up scenario about the circumstances. You assumed the shooter thought the guy was unarmed. You have no idea if he had a phone in his hand, his hands in his pockets, a hand behind him, or just a balled fist that could have concealed something. You haven't any idea, but you stated it as fact. Also, and you've done this more than once, you're painting a picture that the shooter turned around, raised his gun in a measured fashion, aimed, checked the guy over, steadied his shot and blasted this "walking, unarmed guy who was just verbally berating him". You've done that multiple times.And you try to pass it off as the way things happened. It is just as likely that the guy dropped his groceries in his car, grabbed his gun as he hears the guy still berating him (who knows what he was saying or how he was saying it, because the story is really - strangely in my opinion - sparse on what happened between when the shooter went in the store, came out and as he was walking to his car)... hears the guy coming up behind him, spins around and there the dude is 15 feet from him with his hands who knows where and fires a turning shot in fear of the guys cell phone or any number of things that may have scared the shit out of him.You have no idea. Neither do I. But I'm not the one making declarative statements like "He had plenty of time". Also, I have experience with how these situations play, and your concept of time in the situation is just not realistic, particularly for a guy who may have very little idea what he's doing and is in fight or flight mode. Multiple times you've painted this picture of the guy with "his gun aimed and ready". That is nowhere in the story. You keep saying it like it is. It isn't. Multiple times you say 15 feet is plenty of room/time. It isn't, under any circumstances. Even trained professionals can have a good shoot with an assailant with his hands in his pockets at 15 feet. Like, guys who are under strict guidelines. Because 15 feet is a one second stumble from you. I can't explain that any more clearly. It is entirely situation dependent. 15 feet is nothing. It is no buffer from attack. It is possible for a man to take the steps necessary to you before you even fully register he is upon you, unless you're trained for it. And hitting such a man is by no means certain, particularly in the fog and adrenalin of real world situations. So, you can keep saying that 15 feet is a long distance, and talk about how easy it is to shoot a man at 15 feet if he lunges at you. Saying that "you have plenty of time if he starts running at you... he wouldn't have time to actually "run" btw, because you can't get to speed in less than a second... and present this whole thing as if the shooter was a SF soldier who had turned, faced the man, drew down and aimed carefully at the guy... you can keep talking about it in that way, but most of this has nothing to do with reality, and none of it is justified by the information given. You'll probably just see this as me claiming that the aggressive guy was a monstrous ninja doing cartwheels toward the shooter, all the while hurling ninja stars and sai's at the poor, frightened, justified defender. Not much I can do about that at this point. This is pretty much the only thing you've said that is relevant to what I've been saying:

I still think that he probably erred on the side of shooting too early, if the actual situation was somewhere in between "calm discussion" and "ranting lunatic sprinting at him".

And that would be debatable. Maybe he did shoot too early. The advancing guy's hands are a big part of it though, and I don't know what they were doing. Or how quickly he closed the distance as the shooter was tossing (Placing carefully?) his bags and grabbing (carefully picking up, inspecting for rounds and proper cleaning?) his gun and spinning (slowing turning in a semi-circle calmly?) toward the aggressor. So, maybe. No way to know.

plus you're still ignoring the fact that it takes a tiny fraction of a second to pull the trigger of a gun that's pointed and ready to fire at a target.

Here we go again. Am I ignoring that? Or are you ignoring that you are just inventing this draw down, aim, measured "ready to fire" scenario.“He went to his car, put whatever he purchased inside it, and he pulled out a gun and shot me” is the only information for the start to finish of the gun involvement.Can you point out where this idea that the aggressor was just standing there as the man pulled out his gun, turned, aimed, and was "ready to fire" in any measured way? Or that it happened in any sort of methodical, plenty of time to think way? Because I'm not seeing it. And this is even from the guy who got shot. His story is very, very sparse.The shooter could have done all that. He could have turned with the gun as the guy was at 30 feet. He could have raised the gun at 24 feet. He could have aimed at 20 feet, he could have closed one eye and brought his other hand under the gun for support at 18 feet, he could have thought to himself as the guy recognized the gun, stopped dead at 15 feet and put his hands out in the air, "do you feel lucky, punk?"... he could have felt the warmth of the sun on his face, felt the satisfying weight of the gun in his hand, congratulated himself on how steady his hands were, "Mom always said I should've been a surgeon". He could have waited for just the right spot in his exhale, waited for the moment between heartbeats. As a barely visible smirk creases his mouth... BLAM! "Another one bites the dust."Conversely, he could have been waddling quickly to his car with an inner monologue running. "Oh god, oh god, oh god... that psycho was waiting for me. Is he still back there? Oh shit, he's talking (yelling?) at me again... shit... shit... shit". "Oh man, oh man... I've got that gun. And I was scared of road rage? Fuck, he's getting closer. Bags down, get the gun... ok.. ok.." *spins* "oh shit he's right there what's that in his hand/why's his hand in his pocket/behind him/something in his fist? can't tell" BLAM! "SHIT".Or anything in between. Who fucking knows? You pretend to. Others are being absolutely retarded in their claims about the unknowns, down to the psychopathy of the shooter. They not only have concluded how it happened, but have gone into the shooter's mind and have diagnosed him.The story doesn't provide anywhere near enough information to fill in any of those details. And, as my point has been all along, there is no way to make a judgement on whether or not it was justifiable.