Sounds like the Kyle Rittenhouse situation… if the firefighter followed the man to his car, where he retrieved a gun for protection, then the fire fighter attacked him to take the gun away, then the fire fighter was clearly the aggressor. It also says that while inside the store, the man was rude to the clerk, the fire fighter got involved in telling him to leave. And the man “jumped away” from the fire fighter. why did he need to “jump away” from the fire fighter if the fire fighter wasn’t acting in a threatening manner first, being the initial aggressor? I’d like to see store video of what happened because the news stories apparently paint different pictures in people’s minds.
The article also said the guy with the gun threatened the firefighter. I agree that the store video is needed to see how it initially went down. Also the video of him getting the gun. If they are in the middle of a physical altercation as he’s reaching into the truck for the gun, it would be different than him getting the gun and then getting into a fight. Especially if he threatened him before doing so.
It sounds to me like they both acting in ways that could perceived as threatening to each other. The guy probably could have gotten in car and left instead getting his gun and resuming the conflict. The fire fighter didn't need to follow the guy into the parking lot after he left the store. I'm just saying, Rittenhouse got off because even though he was flaunting his gun at people for intimidation (which may have been the case, here, as well), once the protesters attacked him, apparently to disarm him, it was deemed that his life was in danger, and he had a right to defend himself ... These laws are stupid, and intentionally designed to protect who act aggressively with guns, but it appears to be the law.
It depends on the threat which isn’t clear in any article posted in this thread. If it’s “you need to have your ass kicked” then the firefighter shouldn’t have followed him. If he told them he was coming back with a gun, I wouldn’t blame him for following him to prevent him from getting it.
The only person that had a gun was a convicted felon that wasn’t legally allowed to have one. I don’t even own a gun but not sure how your comment applies to this specific situation.
Maybe don't go get a gun because they don't have the flavor blunt you want The Kansas City Star reports that Taylor was mad at the female clerk because the store didn't sell the brand of cigar he was looking for. Taylor became increasingly agitated, was refused service, and told by both the clerk and Santi to leave. Taylor then threatened them both, went outside, and retrieved a gun with an extended magazine from his white SUV. It was then that the woman accompanying Taylor became involved. At this point Santi physically engaged and bested Taylor, whom Santi grappled to the ground and successfully restrained in a stranglehold
Tragic loss of life. Few weeks ago I did a one day self defense/ training session for the GDOT Hero drivers. Yes we focused a lot on technique/ strikes etc but also spent a considerable amount of time on deescalation of domestics. You can imagine the interactions these guys have at night on the side of 285 in the rain with a flat tire and man/woman pissed ar each other. These guys don’t have a choice as they are called on the scene but for regular peeps I always advise them to stay far away from any domestic. See 2 people arguing or slapping in target parking lot ? Get in your car, turn on Feinbaum and drive away. if left with no choices and bad guy has a weapon. If you don’t control the weapon you don’t control the fight. Looks like the firemen was controlling the guy(sort of) but lost control of the scene by losing focus of whereabouts of the weapon and how to handle the woman. This stuff takes a lot reps and scenario play
Or maybe Taylor was being rude to the clerk, and Santi tried to be a bad ass and stand up for clerk. Tried to physically assault him in store causing him to "jump away"... followed him to his car ... when he retrieved his gun for protection, as allowed by law, Santi attacked him physically again, took his gun away, put him in a choke hold ... his female friend yelled to "let him go", "you're killing him", but Santi ignored that kept on trying to suffocate the man death, leaving the female friend no choice but to protect his life with deadly force. Both versions could fit the fact as I have read them. I'd like to see the video from the instore/outside cams. I'm assuming the prosecutor saw them and decided they acted within the laws. If you don't like law, work to change them, I'll join you in that fight.
It wasn't intended to apply to this specific situation, it was intended to apply to the bolded section of what I quoted. I will edit it to be more clear.
Another report Surveillance videos showed Taylor return to his vehicle after becoming very agitated inside the business. Surveillance videos also showed Taylor and Santi fighting over an item that Taylor was holding, which was a firearm with an extended magazine. At one point, the female passenger with Taylor got the firearm and fired a round, appearing to hit Santi in the back. Santi died as a result of the injuries sustained from the gunshot. Taylor is a convicted felon out on bail for first degree armed robbery Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article266983251.html#storylink=cpy
Yep This is just like the Rittenhouse shooting… wait… no no it is t. Convicted felon is agitated and harassed the female clerk of a gas station. Fireman stands up for the female clerk. Convicted felon is Not legally allowed to own a firearm Goes and get said illegal firearm and confronts the fireman Loses gun in tussle with fireman Fireman puts the convicted felon in a chokehold to restrain him Convicted felons female companion grabs the gun and shoots the fireman. Fireman dies.
He’s a convicted felon. He wasn’t legally allowed to go get a gun. He’s actually being charged for that.
The felon who illegally possessed the gun should face a firearm charge and go to prison for it. I wonder if there are “escalators” in the law that should give him extra time because his illegally possessed gun led to a death. The ire of this thread was aimed at the woman, who may not have had such restrictions even if she picked up the boyfriends gun. The fact that her boyfriend is a scumbag isn’t relevant unless she was an accessory to a crime. In this case she was not. Seems like she gave ample warning and the “good guy” persisted with the chokehold. So as unfortunate as it is, the DA made the correct legal call. Not sure very comparable to Rittenhouse as he never should have been there in the first place, had brandished his gun at people, etc. It’s actually more comparable to George Zinmerman in a way, except here we have evidence basically exonerating the woman whereas there was not really exonerating evidence for Zimmerman. In that case all we had was Zimmerman’s word that he was jumped (and that had to be weighed against the fact Zimmerman was told to wait for police, and that he took it on his accord own to stalk the kid home). Still not a perfect comparison, every case has its own unique facts.
I exaggerated a bit, but the point remains. He was choking/strangling someone for an extended period of time, was warned multiple times to stop, ignored that warning, and suffered the consequences. Unfortunate situation for all involved, but this is the kind of stuff that happens in gun-obsessed America (thanks to the right).
Not surprised at all, but this is the America that a certain contingent wants, one where not only is everyone is walking around armed, but one where crappy laws are put in place to defend them when they inevitably end up killing someone.
My comment was specific to the statement that he was legally allowed to get his gun. The defense of the woman is based on whether she knew who started the fight. If she knew her boyfriend grabbed his gun and went after the firefighter, she doesn’t have a right to shoot the firefighter. Also, there is plenty of ire in this thread directed at the firefighter.
The SYG laws appear to be increasing gun fatalities notably in the South. I think being able to defend yourself or people you are with, with firearms, such as in this case, is reasonable. However, the SYG laws may empower in the wrong way as firearms become perceived as a primary course of defense instead of intelligently walking away, de-escalating conflict, etc. research, “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides
