wnyguy

I defer to your infinite knowledge on this matter. Thanks for sharing.

I understand that. I once talked to this woman who was a court stenographer and I said that must be a pretty interesting job.She disagreed. She told me about a case that still haunts me to this day. Involving children and the man who tortured and killed them. I can not dwell on this story in my head for too long, it is far too emotional.

You're right. It's a sick, crazy, sad world out there. Senseless violence and threats of violence are rampant. Deadly fires, sink holes that swallow up cars. Wars and rumors of war. And yet this story saddened me somehow.

You must have more. let's hear it.

Yes, Will Smith was reaching into his car to retrieve a firearm, whereas McKnight had no weapon in which to reach for.

Just pointing out one of the glaring differences on how LE handled the situations.

I just read a great article in GQ concerning that other New Orleans road rage shooting of Will Smith. The man that shot and killed him was arrested and remains in jail even though he did the exact same thing the shooter in this incident did. He remained at the scene, removed the magazine from his pistol, placed it on the hood of the car, requested that eye witnesses stay at the scene, and waited for police to arrive. He then surrendered peacefully. He is black though. His trial starts today I believe. Link to anyone who would like to view the article http://www.gq.com/story/saint-will-and-the-man-who-shot-him

Oh I know, your beef was that McKnight deserved to be shot because he was a dumb ass.

It appears that the shooter has been arrested and charged with manslaughter.

That theory does not work in a "stand your ground" or a "self defense " case. McKnight was not a credible lethal threat to the shooter.

Yes but were any of them fronts for a child sex ring?

No not reasonable to shoot them. By the accounts given by LE, McKnight was outside the passenger side of the car, unarmed, while the shooter was inside the vehicle in the drivers seat. Totally unreasonable to shoot and kill a guy.

Yeah, you guys.

Normal to lose your temper, I rescind my previous statement that it is normal to act on it. You guys, sheesh.

Oh okay. Gee for a minute there I thought I was being called a lunatic simply because I could understand how someone could lose their temper and confront someone who had enraged you. It may not be typical to act on that rage but I do understand it.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were at the scene and know all of these specific details. You are saying that the person killed was acting violent and anti social, correct?

What the heck does this have to do with anything about this topic? Why the name calling? I am just voicing my opinion.

I haven't done it but I can understand it.

Right.

It is typical, normal, human behavior. You lose your temper, you confront someone. What isn't normal human behavior is killing some one because of it.

I realize how easy this is to just brush off, make light of, joke about. Most times I am right there with you. I just find this story sad for some reason.

I guess, if you can't see how easy it is to be put in a similar situation then what is the point of discussing it? Bottom line is a man, not a thug, not a drug dealing punk, but, by all accounts, a good man is dead.

Let me just say this. Have you ever been is a situation where you lost your temper? Maybe been in a confrontation with another person in which things got heated? Tempers flaring? Maybe yelling back and forth? Now imagine you are shot 4 or 5 times and killed for it. Dumbass ? That is a bit much.

Standing over him and firing another bullet into the unarmed guy is an execution. How can they release him?

No, I think he is the guy that said " Han. I am your father."