Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Man Films Himself Killing Neighbor" video.

  1. In an armed robbery, the assumption of the assailed is that the assailant will shoot if you don't give them what they want. When people are raped at gunpoint, they assume their only other choice is death. I don't see any difference here except that the gun may have been at 270° instead of 180°. Again, you don't go around threatening people with guns. He didn't have it holstered, unchambered & concealed for safety. He had 1 under the hammer & it was in his hand. He came to hurt someone.
    1
  2. Do you understand the problem there? For 1, if it's at the point where you need a gun, you need to just wait for the police. Aside from that, it shouldn't be at that level of aggression with your neighbor. Carrying a gun is an act of aggression. Again, if he had a bat, wouldn't the aggression be perceived the same way? As for your intimidation premise, I can partially buy it but the problem is that you don't order people around at gunpoint esp. not for something so petty. He came to fight
    1
  3. If I come to your house carrying a Marruci Maple (that's a bat) in my hand & start yelling at you about the loudness of your party, do you think I brought that bat to play a few innings or that you anticipated a fight? If your answer is, "baseball was not the intention" then you're telling me that you knew that bringing a bat is an act of aggression. And given the fact that a bullet is 1 of the world's fastest ways to kill a person, I think we know his intentions.
    1
  4. Actually we CAN tell because the facts of the case were already discovered in trial. The facts are that he walked across the street carrying his gun. He had no business doing that. He created a hostile situation. You don't get to pick a fight, shot someone in the fight then claim self-defense. The hasn't degenerated to that level of bullshit cowardice... yet.
    1
  5. Nonsense. The numbers ARE the facts. Are you stupid or something? Do you want more data on who gets shot? In homes, it's usually other people who occupy the homes. As for your CCW permit premise, THIS MAN DIDN'T HAVE HIS GUN CONCEALED. That's a violation itself. That's actually the violation that created this mess. And spare me your shit about "the hood". I'm from the nastiest part of the country's nastiest city: THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO. I've NEVER needed to carry a chopper. KC ain't shit.
    1
  6. So you won't answer my questions? You don't even know that the tackler wasn't the guy who got killed? Fantastic.
    1
  7. He's a coward at heart. He doesn't understand that carrying a gun & shouting orders about someone's music is armed coercion. He also doesn't understand that civilization is better served when people deflate violence; not hyperinflate violence with weapons. Most of all though, he'll ignore the data that says there are too many gun deaths of "the good guys" by means of handguns.
    1
  8. I'm full of shit because I brought you the truth? On top of that, your only response, after I told you that I'm from a much more violent place than the "hood" of KC, is that "Chicago is run by crooks"? So WHAT? What I'm saying is that if I can cruise the South Streets with no heat & no sticker, then people don't need guns. The data says that more "good guys" get hurt by handguns. In THIS case, Mr. Rodriguez created a isue then shot his way out of it. Guess what though. No weapon. no issue.
    1
  9. Who's gonna jump him if he's at home? Nobody. That's who. Who's jumping him if he's being reasonable? Odds on, nobody. He can't "make them" do anything. The police enforce laws; not retired firemen. If I rob you at gunpoint with a gun that has an empty magazine, assuming you assume it's full, isn't it still considered armed robbery? AND, the guy who got shot to death wasn't even the guy who did the tackling. He's an unqualified firearm user who took the law into his own hands. That's a fail
    1
  10. I'll present to you the same anecdote that I've presented to other people about this case. Let's replace the gun with a Louisville Slugger. Is he was carrying the bat to invite his neighbors to a late night game of baseball? If your answer is no, then it's kinda hard to argue intent in any other terms. Did he have a particular target? Probably not. But walking around with a gun in your hand (if we're not in a robbery or a war) means that 1, you mean to shoot someone. And we all know guns kill.
    1
  11. That's the problem. There AREN'T few lethal shootings. In fact, per 100K people, the morbidity rate is 57.7 (that's the CDC's number). Are you stupid or something? As to my point, let's be honest about his intentions bringing a gun. It's 1 thing to have a gun on you for security. (I find THAT unnecessary but I'll allow a scenario with it holstered & concealed) It's altogether different to walk across the street with the gun in your hand & start making demands. That's called "armed coercion".
    1
  12. If you agree that it's an act of aggression to carry a bat in 1's hand, why then, is it not an act of aggression too carry an even more dangerous weapon in your hand? The comparison is fair because he's carrying the gun IN HIS HAND. It's not on his waist for "just in case" purposes. Thus the comparison is extremely fair. Wanna know what's non-aggressive? Standing in front of your own house, gun (if it's necessary to have it) CONCEALED & waiting for the cops. That's not what he did.
    1
  13. Actually we do know who ran into him.
    1