Comments by "Mark Zuckergecko" (@markzuckergecko621) on "Family Dollar Employee Charged With Murder For Shooting Shoplifter" video.

@lvl5charmander wow, this is an actual slippery slope fallacy. This is like a unicorn. That term gets thrown around so much that most people think it means "there's no such thing as a slippery slope", but you have actually, genuinely used the argument fallaciously. I'm actually kind of in awe right now.
15
Yea I'm torn on this one, I agree with Sean that this guy absolutely did break the law, and should face some kind of justice. But based on principles, I stand with the shooter, he acted excessively but just shooting or even killing the intruder was not wrong. Something needs to be done about this. I think the right thing to do is for him to be convicted of murder, but get the lightest sentence possible. If these soft on crime politicians are going to let crime get out of control like it has, then this guy should get a slap on the wrist for defending himself.
12
@loneIyboy15 there's nothing contradictory about this. If he had shot the guy once, or twice, and he died, I wouldn't see that as a crime, because he was acting in self defense. 9 or 10 bullets later, he's definitely trying to kill the intruder. Intent matters. Neutralizing and imminent threat is not illegal, even if it results in their death.
6
If I were the Judge, I would find some extremely obscure error in paperwork and call it a mistrial. Whoops, sorry guys, I don't know what happened. Legal stuff, ya know😉😉
5
@loneIyboy15 he is wrong, because he used excessive force. I'm firm on that. But I also understand where he's coming from, and we've seen so blatantly tipped the scales are in criminal justice, so my best solution is for him to get a minimal sentence. There is no contradiction here, saying "it was wrong, but not that wrong" is a completely legitimate position, it's the entire reason different crimes have different punishments.
5
I really respect how Sean sits on stories for a few days, until the facts emerge and he can make an accurate, in depth video about it. He could probably get more views if he jumped on the story 5 minutes after it breaks, with his opinions and some blind speculation of what happened, based on his political agenda, like pretty much everyone else does. But Sean chooses quality over cheap ragebait.👍
3
@lvl5charmander it's fallacious because there is already legal precedent for road rage, and where it crosses the line of legality. There's no reason to think extending self defense laws would have any greater implications to road rage, what's considered aggression, whether on the road or not, would not change.
2
The establishment wants us to panic, and fight each other. People seek order when there's chaos, and if they get desperate enough, they'll allow authoritarianism if they think it's the only way to have order.
1
If this were reversed, and the criminal had killed the clerk, the left would be defending him and saying he's a gud boi that dint do nuthin wrong.
1