TexasCHLforum.com

JSThane wrote:

txglock21 wrote:My only question is, how do you know they are "unarmed"? Just because they are not waving around a knife or holding a gun doesn't mean they can't pull one out at anytime. Yes, you may catch some heck after the fact, but if I feel my life is at threat....

Bingo!!!

Remember, if -we- are able to conceal a weapon, so are the goblins! Empty hands can rather quickly be filled! If a group of thugs is in "attack mode," even if they are "unarmed," they don't act like the believe they are, and so they are not. The mind is the ultimate weapon; bare hands can and have killed, and if a thug is acting confident in his ability to deal damage with his hands, he can probably back that confidence up with actions.

Goblins! I like that description.

That hasn't worked out for them so much recently with ISIS/ISIL. They, the liberal media, may be waking up. But, I contradict myself.

Sure seems like deadly force would have been justified in this case if either of the victims had been armed. But, we all know that if deadly force had been used by one of the victims the liberal media would have turned it all around and gone on a witch hunt for the victim's actually defending themselves and it wouldn't matter how many thugs were attacking them or how badly they were hurt. If their injuries weren't life threatening and verified by a doctor afterwards any use of deadly force would be completely unnecessary in any liberal's eyes.