UPDATE: Judge Delares Mistrial in Case of Self Defense or 2nd Degree Murder

[tarheelbybirth]

Was it illegal for him to have the gun in his pocket? No.

The deceased did not know FOR SURE that there was a gun present until the deceased shoved Weiss. This was a 2 on 1 situation.

Can you read? I am guessing not, because you can't keep the facts straight from the article.

Is that being logical enough for you?

I'm not sure what part of...

...after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm...

...is eluding you. He felt threatened. He went to his car and got his gun. He stated that HE felt threatened and YOU stated that if you felt threatened you'd call 911. I'm going to ask one more time - how are the two threats different?

If you continue to claim that retrieving the gun and then putting it in his pocket is somehow relevant to that question, I'm going to assume you're admitting you're wrong and trying to save face.

 

[Franisdaman]

Are you now inventing testimony to bolster your case or has the defendant's story changed?

I'll ask again - you stated that if threatened by a firearm, YOU would retreat and call 911. According to Weiss's own testimony, he felt threatened and returned to his car to retrieve a weapon. How are the two threats different?

Seriously; now you think I am inventing testimony.

You have zero credibility because you obviously either did not read the article or cannot comprehend what you read. Which is it?

 

[longliveCS40]

Any confrontation is about power and control. When Weiss was unarmed, the two other guys were in control and threatening him. At the moment Weiss retrieved his gun, he was in control of the situation.

It wasn't self defense. He willingly entered the fracas with a weapon. Try to spin things any way you like but those are the facts as laid out by Weiss.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Seriously; now you think I am inventing testimony.

You have zero credibility because you obviously either did not read the article or cannot comprehend what you read. Which is it?

And now you've simply crossed over into lying. I'm quoting from the article YOU posted. He felt threatened. He said so. He returned to his car and retrieved his phone and his gun. He said so. What he did with the gun at that point is irrelevant to the question I have asked multiple times. I assume you know you've f'ed up and are simply trying to save face by lying...the alternative is that you are as dumb as these posts make it appear.

You might want to simply drop the thread.

 

[Franisdaman]

Weiss said he felt threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returned to his car to get his phone and firearm.

This is the line in the article that turns it from self defense to manslaughter. Every action after this by Weiss, he was the aggressor and instigator of the situation. He was in control of the situation from this point forward and that is the point.

Remember; from the article, the deceased backed into Weiss' car. It is not clear how close the deceased's car and Weiss' car were; if neither car moved, it is not like Weiss walked very far to his car to get his phone and his legally possessed gun.

Note, too, that Weiss' gun was in his pocket. He said he had a firearm. That did not prevent the deceased to shove and spit on Wiess and threaten to beat him up in a 2 on 1 situation.

Weiss did not reveal the gun until being verbally and physically threatened.

 

[Franisdaman]

And now you've simply crossed over into lying. I'm quoting from the article YOU posted. He felt threatened. He said so. He returned to his car and retrieved his phone and his gun. He said so. What he did with the gun at that point is irrelevant to the question I have asked multiple times. I assume you know you've f'ed up and are simply trying to save face by lying...the alternative is that you are as dumb as these posts make it appear.

You might want to simply drop the thread.

As I stated previously, you seriously have zero credibility. That is very clear.

And you don't have to answer my previous question; you lack reading comprehension because you obviously cannot comprehend what was stated in that article.

And why am I bothering responding to you now because you obviously cannot comprehend this post, either.

 

[longliveCS40]

Remember; from the article, the deceased backed into Weiss' car. It is not clear how close the deceased's car and Weiss' car were; if neither car moved, it is not like Weiss walked very far to his car to get his phone and his legally possessed gun.

Note, too, that Weiss' gun was in his pocket. He said he had a firearm. That did not prevent the deceased to shove and spit on Wiess and threaten to beat him up in a 2 on 1 situation.

Weiss did not reveal the gun until being verbally and physically threatened.

None of that matters. He got into his car to retrieve the weapon. He could have locked the doors at that point and not initiated further contact with the other individuals.

He made the wrong choice. His choice made him the aggressor.

 

[longliveCS40]

As I stated previously, you seriously have zero credibility. That is very clear.

And you don't have to answer my previous question; you lack reading comprehension because you obviously cannot comprehend what was stated in that article.

And why am I bothering responding to you now because you obviously cannot comprehend this post, either.

Just a classic Ad hominem argument right here. You might want to quit while you're behind, Fran...you're looking foolish.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

As I stated previously, you seriously have zero credibility. That is very clear.

And you don't have to answer my previous question; you lack reading comprehension because you obviously cannot comprehend what was stated in that article.

And why am I bothering responding to you now because you obviously cannot comprehend this post, either.

I'm going to give you one more opportunity to save some dignity here.

if you came back with a gun, i would retreat and call 911.

So...if you felt threatened, you would call 911. Good.

Weiss, who has a permit to carry a gun, told the police that after feeling threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returning to his car to get his phone and firearm

Weiss felt threatened and, rather than taking your sensible course, he retrieved his gun and then returned to the argument. One more time, what's the difference between the two threats that YOU would call 911 but you excuse him for getting a gun and returning to the argument? And for the sake of clarity - since it seems to completely escape you - WHERE he had the gun at that point is totally irrelevant. The question is about response to a perceived threat.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Just a classic Ad hominem argument right here. You might want to quit while you're behind, Fran...you're looking foolish.

But...but...but...he had the gun in his POCKET!!!

 

[Franisdaman]

But...but...but...he had the gun in his POCKET!!!

wow, you finally got a fact correct.

Congrats!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

wow, you finally got a fact correct.

Congrats!

Did he have the gun in his pocket when he first felt threatened? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Franisdaman]

I'm going to give you one more opportunity to save some dignity here.

So...if you felt threatened, you would call 911. Good.

Weiss felt threatened and, rather than taking your sensible course, he retrieved his gun and then returned to the argument. One more time, what's the difference between the two threats that YOU would call 911 but you excuse him for getting a gun and returning to the argument? And for the sake of clarity - since it seems to completely escape you - WHERE he had the gun at that point is totally irrelevant. The question is about response to a perceived threat.

Can you tell me why it matters how I would handle the situation?

What matters is if he broke the law or not.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Since both cars were probably next to each other (the deceased backed into Weiss), it was not like Weiss could go very far. But then again, you struggle with reading comprehension so you probably did not get that from the article.

I cannot even imagine you on a jury; you would be clueless in sorting everything out.

 

[Franisdaman]

Did he have the gun in his pocket when he first felt threatened? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Try to comprehend that from the article AND then try to figure out what is relevant to Weiss and what is not. You obviously need to read the article AGAIN!

 

[longliveCS40]

Try to comprehend that from the article AND then try to figure out what is relevant to Weiss and what is not. You obviously need to read the article AGAIN!

It was a rhetorical question. He very clearly did not have the gun when he first felt threatened. This is one of the most relevant points of the whole article.

Your relevance selectivity is very off.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Can you tell me why it matters how I would handle the situation?

What matters is if he broke the law or not.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Since both cars were probably next to each other (the deceased backed into Weiss), it was not like Weiss could go very far. But then again, you struggle with reading comprehension so you probably did not get that from the article.

I cannot even imagine you on a jury; you would be clueless in sorting everything out.

Once again...creating facts to support your case. You made the sensible choice to retreat and call 911. That path was available to Weiss. He chose instead to escalate the situation by introducing the threat of a gun. Which wasn't in his pocket when he first felt threatened...right? When he retrieved the gun and threatened the others, he became the aggressor. When he pulled it, they could have legally killed him by whatever means at their disposal...yes or no.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It was a rhetorical question. He very clearly did not have the gun when he first felt threatened. This is one of the most relevant points of the whole article.

Your relevance selectivity is very off.

He knows he's wrong. He's playing the troll at this point to try to spare himself from admitting it.

 

[Franisdaman]

Once again...creating facts to support your case. you made the sensible choice to retreat and call 911. That path was available to Weiss. He chose instead to escalate the situation by introducing the threat of a gun. Which wasn't in his pocket when he first felt threatened...right? When he retrieved the gun and threatened the others, he became the aggressor. When he pulled it, they could have legally killed him by whatever means at their disposal...yes or no.

You make zero sense. All i have referenced is what is in the article so how is that creating facts? Can you explain that one?

Well, you can't.

This is why I say you have zero credibility. You lied in your very first sentence of your post!

Why do you lie so much? Can you please answer that? Has this always been an issue in your life?

 

[Franisdaman]

It was a rhetorical question. He very clearly did not have the gun when he first felt threatened. This is one of the most relevant points of the whole article.

Your relevance selectivity is very off.

Wasn't it obvious when the gun was presented?

Why was it presented?

Answer that please.

 

[Franisdaman]

He knows he's wrong. He's playing the troll at this point to try to spare himself from admitting it.

Now you are just looking desperate in saving face.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Now you are just looking desperate in saving face.

Interestingly, the addition of a mere two letters makes your nickname so much more appropriate. Secondly, you need an avatar. I'd suggest:

 

[Franisdaman]

Interestingly, the addition of a mere two letters makes your nickname so much more appropriate. Secondly, you need an avatar. I'd suggest:

thanks for showing us all that when you lie (and get caught in that lie) and when you have lost an argument, this is all you have left and this is what you resort to.

 

[ANYCHawk]

They threatened to beat him up... which is the threshold for me if I was on the jury. Period. It was 2 vs 1. You can't ever afford to get in those fights and lose.
.

I haven't read further than here. So I don't know if it was addressed. But, this point here is just stupid. Someone said "I'm gonna beat you up" so that's OK to kill them over?!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

thanks for showing us all that when you lie (and get caught in that lie) and when you have lost an argument, this is all you have left and this is what you resort to.

Ahhh....but then everybody was kung fu fighting. It's in the article. Didn't you read the article YOU posted or do you simply lack the comprehension to understand it?

 

[ScoutRefugee]

You read the article and missed this?????

“It could be argued that he retreated to the point where he met the burden,” said criminal defense attorney Ryan Pacyga.

A lawyer could argue that water isn't wet, if he's paid enough money. He won't get very far with a jury, though.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

A lawyer could argue that water isn't wet, if he's paid enough money. He won't get very far with a jury, though.

Franisdamoran is trolling. Give it up. There's no point in arguing with him...he's already conceded the point.

 

[Franisdaman]

Ahhh....but then everybody was kung fu fighting. It's in the article. Didn't you read the article YOU posted or do you simply lack the comprehension to understand it?

Before you edit this, I want everybody to see this.

Wow.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Before you edit this, I want everybody to see this.

Wow.

Why would I edit it? It's factually true. It's in the article. Didn't you even read it?

 

[Franisdaman]

Franisdamoran is trolling. Give it up. There's no point in arguing with him...he's already conceded the point.

Again, everybody take a look.

When this poster lies and gets caught in the lie, this is what he resorts to.

Everybody else is the "moran."

 

[Franisdaman]

Why would I edit it? It's factually true. It's in the article. Didn't you even read it?

 

[ScoutRefugee]

Can you tell me why it matters how I would handle the situation?

What matters is if he broke the law or not.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Since both cars were probably next to each other (the deceased backed into Weiss), it was not like Weiss could go very far. But then again, you struggle with reading comprehension so you probably did not get that from the article.

I cannot even imagine you on a jury; you would be clueless in sorting everything out.

Because you are arguing what is or isn't a reasonable response and using your own applied logic. Duh!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Forget how to type there?

 

[Franisdaman]

A lawyer could argue that water isn't wet, if he's paid enough money. He won't get very far with a jury, though.

We shall see.

It will come down to the law and applying facts and testimony to the law.

I don't think this is an easy case at all; I would not be surprised if there is a hung jury.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

We shall see.

It will come down to the law and applying facts and testimony to the law.

I don't think this is an easy case at all; I would not be surprised if there is a hung jury.

Care to place a friendly wager?

 

[Franisdaman]

Because you are arguing what is or isn't a reasonable response and using your own applied logic. Duh!

I don't own a gun so it's not even an option.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Again, everybody take a look.

When this poster lies and gets caught in the lie, this is what he resorts to.

Everybody else is the "moran."

Hey everybody!!! OVER HERE!!!

 

[ScoutRefugee]

I don't own a gun so it's not even an option.

So, when trying to discern who is in the wrong, you are applying no logic what so ever? Sounds about right. Can't believe you are admitting it.

 

[Franisdaman]

So, when trying to discern who is in the wrong, you are applying no logic what so ever? Sounds about right. Can't believe you are admitting it.

you are saying the 2 individuals (the deceased and his friend) were in the right?

the defendant legally owned a gun.

the defendant is claiming self defense in this situation based on:
* It was 2 on 1
* The 2 individuals said they were going to beat him up
* The deceased shoved him and spat on him
* The deceased tried to grab his gun
* The defendant backed up after getting shoved and spat on, which a criminal defense attorney said might qualify as "retreating."

Is that logical enough for you?

 

[ScoutRefugee]

you are saying the 2 individuals (the deceased and his friend) were in the right?

the defendant legally owned a gun.

the defendant is claiming self defense in this situation based on:
* It was 2 on 1
* The 2 individuals said they were going to beat him up
* The deceased shoved him and spat on him
* The deceased tried to grab his gun
* The defendant backed up after getting shoved and spat on, which a criminal defense attorney said might qualify as "retreating."

Is that logical enough for you?

So....you were applying logic?

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

Guilty. If he had his gun on him during the entire exchange, I could be convinced otherwise. The fact that he went back to the car and got his gun, is the problem here. And it should be a problem for everyone.

^This right here. Grabbing a gun is certainly escalating the situation. He could have retreated to his vehicle (sounds like he actually did this to retrieve his firearm) and called authorities with his gun by his side. He had options.