RP fan driving home shoots drunk driving attacker is now guilty of murder!

[paulbot24]

This article is unbelievable. It's kind of long, but it's the only one that really delves into the details surrounding the case which happened right here in my state of Arizona. I'll give you a brief little overview but the article is absolutely worth the read. This happened around the 2008 primaries. The man John Stuart and his fiance were coming home from some Ron Paul sign posting when they were attacked by an enraged drunk driver who goes by the name of Orville Beasley. Oh, and when I say drunk, since it's subjective, Beasley's alcohol content was .19. Arizona's law is .08. Once stopped, Beasley immediately gets out of his car and stumbles over to Stuart's car. This was confirmed by the police as well. Now here is where the details get all hazy, which is strange since both men had passengers. Stuart had his fiance in the car and Beasley had his wife with him in his car.... One following event remains perfectly clear. Stuart eventually shoots Beasley with an AR15 he keeps in his car and kills him. The first trial ended in a mistrial. This time he wasn't so lucky. Guilty of second-degree murder and drive by shooting! Possible 43 years sentence. I tried to keep it short. I swear. This just makes me sick. Justice for.....yeah right. I know. :(

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/033114-2008-05-06-update-2-arizona-v-stuart.htm?EdNo=002&From=

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't really know anything about this, but it makes me sad. :(

[RickyJ]

I don't know the whole story but road rage definitely can be deadly.

[paulbot24]

Defending yourself from a screaming drunk driver who jumps out of his car at a stoplight and tries to attack you in your car can make you guilty of murder? I remember reading this when it happened, before I even knew who Ron Paul was, and I was amazed that it was even going to trial.

[RickyJ]

It looks like to me a clear case of self defense. Getting out of his car, coming toward the other vehicle and reaching his hands inside seems to me to make this a strong case of self defense. It is a shame they convicted him.

[Tinnuhana]

Guess they didn't know about jury nullification. Has he been sentenced yet? Does the jury have a say in that? Maybe if he'd defended himself and passenger with something smaller than an AR15? I mean, you have the right to defend yourself, but how much did the prosecution play up the fact that he shot the guy with that?

[tod evans]

I can't advocate using a firearm to avoid a fist-fight. Morally.

However cops regularly shoot people for much less.. Apparently that's "legal".

[Antischism]

Sounds like both were at fault for provoking each other before the confrontation. Also, just because you have a gun it doesn't mean you should use it at the hint of any threat/confrontation. I don't know enough about the case to make a clear judgment, but from the reading I did, it doesn't seem like the driver's life was in any danger. He could have hit the gas, told his wife to attack him from behind, kicked open the door, rolled up the window prior to it escalating, etc.

The gun is an absolute last resort.

[Anti Federalist]

Poor bastard.

Too bad he wasn't a cop.

Then he would have gotten a paid vacation.

[PaulConventionWV]

Defending yourself from a screaming drunk driver who jumps out of his car at a stoplight and tries to attack you in your car can make you guilty of murder? I remember reading this when it happened, before I even knew who Ron Paul was, and I was amazed that it was even going to trial.

I don't get it. From the story, it seems like Stuart was the maniac driver and Beasley, despite being drunk, was simply reacting to Stuart's out-of-control driving. Beasley is the one that got shot. The eyewitness accounts do not look good for Stuart. I am not going to defend this guy, even though he may be a Ron Paul supporter. That does not change the fact that he killed someone and probably felt tough while doing it, and I can't understand why some people seem to think this is a clear case of self-defense. Are you guys reading the same article I am?

[Barrex]

I can't advocate using a firearm to avoid a fist-fight. Morally.

However cops regularly shoot people for much less.. Apparently that's "legal".

Morally if it were honorable world where attackers attack only with fists and only people who are same size, fighting skills and willing to fight... I would agree.
When stranger comes at you you can never know if he is carrying gun or a knife. He could pick up stone and kill you with it. We are not talking here about elementary schools fist fights... it is 2 adults each capable of killing another with his bare hands.
If ultimate fighter on crack attacks 96 year old woman, does she have the right to use gun to defend her self?
If ultimate fighter on crack attacks 25 year old woman, does she have the right to use gun to defend her self?
If ultimate fighter on crack attacks 96 year old man, does he have the right to use gun to defend her self?
If ultimate fighter on crack attacks 25 year old man, does he have the right to use gun to defend her self?

Initiation of force is bad.

Entire thing is sad, but this part is tyrannical:

He lost his truck: Yes, even though it is evidence Maricopa County has RICOed and is auctioning it off. Hope you don't need your home or car as exonerating evidence some day. In fact I learned this is why Stuart was charged with "drive by shooting:" Expressly so the county could steal his SUV. Second degree murder alone would not allow them to RICO his SUV. Nice to see their money grubbing priorities.


I don't get it. From the story, it seems like Stuart was the maniac driver and Beasley, despite being drunk, was simply reacting to Stuart's out-of-control driving. Beasley is the one that got shot. The eyewitness accounts do not look good for Stuart. I am not going to defend this guy, even though he may be a Ron Paul supporter. That does not change the fact that he killed someone and probably felt tough while doing it, and I can't understand why some people seem to think this is a clear case of self-defense. Are you guys reading the same article I am?

He simply passed him and continue to drive home. It was full line but I wouldnt describe it as maniac driving. After that Beasley kept escalating situation (speding up to follow him closely, headlight high-beams or flashin non stop, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction, exchanging insults, getting out of car and making physical contact with car and probably with Stuart).

This is literally matter of life and death so I wouldnt stake my or anyone elses life on internet argument but I didnt see Stuart as maniac.


Sorry Jerry, 14 of 15 is a made up number. It was made up by Dalton. It is not true. Dalton LIED. How do I know???????
Because I have all 257pages of the police reports right here in front of me. The closest witness to the whole thing was in the car behind John. He states that Beasley was right at John's window when he was shot. According to this witness Beasley did not back up. He was shot at John's window. Several police reports discuss the blood on John's hood and windshield. The autopsy describes the characteristics of the entry wound which are consistent with a shot at very close range. The witness statements are quite clear about what happened and they do NOT match detective Dalton's statements.



P.s.
Comments reveal more information.

[PaulConventionWV]

When stranger comes at you you can never know if he is carrying gun or a knife. He could pick up stone and kill you with it. We are not talking here about elementary schools fist fights... it is 2 adults each capable of killing another with his bare hands.

This is the exact same line of reasoning that police officers use to illegally search you. You can't defend yourself pre-emptively, before you know whether anything bad is going to happen. Eyewitness accounts say Beasley was backing away from the car with his hands up when he got shot in the head. Even if he did reach inside the vehicle, you don't shoot someone when they are backing away with their hands up. The man was unarmed, so there is a good chance that he was not going to try to kill Stuart. Headlines on this forum always talk about how cops shoot unarmed men, but somehow this guy doing it is okay because he was in fear for his life, the exact same thing a cop would say when they shoot someone or a dog for no good reason.


Entire thing is sad, but this part is tyrannical:

Yes, it is, but that doesn't make the guy's case for self-defense any more convincing. The state makes a victim out of everyone, even if they are guilty of crimes.


He simply passed him and continue to drive home. It was full line but I wouldnt describe it as maniac driving. After that Beasley kept escalating situation (speding up to follow him closely, headlight high-beams or flashin non stop, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction, exchanging insults, getting out of car and making physical contact with car and probably with Stuart).

Ok, perhaps it wasn't "maniac driving" (although it certainly could have been). The point is that Beasley was drunk and the guy speeding past him was obviously more out of control than he was. So to say he is a "drunk driver" is kind of misleading because he was just reacting to someone else's driving. Whether you would think it was wild or not, it obviously ticked this guy off.


This is literally matter of life and death so I wouldnt stake my or anyone elses life on internet argument but I didnt see Stuart as maniac.


P.s.
Comments reveal more information.

Stuart may not have been a maniac, but there was no justifiable reason for him to fire his gun, from what I can see. It is absolutely a last resort. You don't want to take someone's life based on suspicion that they may do something irrational in the future. There's just no way you can make that judgment. There is always time to respond to someone who is obviously trying to kill you in that situation, so I don't see why he had to shoot the guy.

[Barrex]

This is the exact same line of reasoning that police officers use to illegally search you. You can't defend yourself pre-emptively, before you know whether anything bad is going to happen. Eyewitness accounts say Beasley was backing away from the car with his hands up when he got shot in the head. Even if he did reach inside the vehicle, you don't shoot someone when they are backing away with their hands up. The man was unarmed, so there is a good chance that he was not going to try to kill Stuart. Headlines on this forum always talk about how cops shoot unarmed men, but somehow this guy doing it is okay because he was in fear for his life, the exact same thing a cop would say when they shoot someone or a dog for no good reason.

No. No. He didnt defend him self pre-emptivley!!!! My english is not perfect so I will copy past this so there is no confusion:
Assault and Battery Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Battery) is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

Stuart was assaulted and there was contact according to witnesses (Battery). Again: This is not pre-emptive and is nothing like what police does.



Ok, perhaps it wasn't "maniac driving" (although it certainly could have been). The point is that Beasley was drunk and the guy speeding past him was obviously more out of control than he was. So to say he is a "drunk driver" is kind of misleading because he was just reacting to someone else's driving. Whether you would think it was wild or not, it obviously ticked this guy off.

I strongly disagree. You cant characterize Stuarts simply passeing his car as "obviously more out of control than he was". There is nothing out of control in passing another car on a road. Beasley was drunk driving. It is a fact. There is nothing misleading in that. Beasley was drunk and ticked off by something that happens millions of times every day. Getting ticked off by that is no justification. It reminded me of policeman getting ticked off for nothing and chasing innocent to get revenge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HROigWi-CcU

It is sign of person who got issues (drunk or not you have responsibility for your self and your actions). That is not justification for his multiple initiations of force (speeding up to follow him closely, headlight high-beams or flashin non stop, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction, exchanging insults, getting out of car and making physical contact with car and probably with Stuart).



Stuart may not have been a maniac, but there was no justifiable reason for him to fire his gun, from what I can see. It is absolutely a last resort. You don't want to take someone's life based on suspicion that they may do something irrational in the future. There's just no way you can make that judgment.
Gun is always last resort. Proble is that Beasley kept acting irrational again and again(speding up to follow him closely, headlight high-beams or flashin non stop, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction, exchanging insults, getting out of car and making physical contact with car and probably with Stuart). If comments are to be trusted Beasley was shoot point blank range (within arms length), which means Beasley was clearly aggressor.

There is always time to respond to someone who is obviously trying to kill you in that situation, so I don't see why he had to shoot the guy.
What time? Stuart should have acted when Beasley chocked him to death or blinded him completely (Beasley damaged 1 Stuarts eye)?
When someone is following you aggressively with high beam lights, pulls next to you insults, gets out of car, starts hitting your car and preventing you from escaping and comes to you, hurts your eye... next thing is probably not going to be "Sir, I apologize for inconvenience but if I may notice you passed me by over full line. Have a good night".

Stuart didnt initiate force. Beasley did.

[PaulConventionWV]

No. No. He didnt defend him self pre-emptivley!!!! My english is not perfect so I will copy past this so there is no confusion:
Assault and Battery Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Battery) is a harmful or offensive touching of another.


I get it. Touching someone is assault. But still, we have conflicting eyewitness reports that say Beasley was backing away from the vehicle and also that he was close up when he was shot.


Stuart was assaulted and there was contact according to witnesses (Battery). Again: This is not pre-emptive and is nothing like what police does.

Just the fact that there was probably some kind of assault doesn't justify the use of deadly force.


I strongly disagree. You cant characterize Stuarts simply passeing his car as "obviously more out of control than he was". There is nothing out of control in passing another car on a road. Beasley was drunk driving. It is a fact. There is nothing misleading in that. Beasley was drunk and ticked off by something that happens millions of times every day. Getting ticked off by that is no justification. It reminded me of policeman getting ticked off for nothing and chasing innocent to get revenge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HROigWi-CcU

You don't know the specifics of the situation. In certain places, it would certainly be inappropriate and potentially very dangerous to pass another car. The fact that it was a solid double yellow line means it probably was not appropriate to pass at that point and could have been dangerous for both drivers. To me, that seems more out of control than Beasley, who was minding his own business before this guy passed him.


It is sign of person who got issues (drunk or not you have responsibility for your self and your actions). That is not justification for his multiple initiations of force (speeding up to follow him closely, headlight high-beams or flashin non stop, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction, exchanging insults, getting out of car and making physical contact with car and probably with Stuart).

Bullshit. If you call following someone closely an initiation of force, then speeding past them is also an initiation of force. Why the double standard? Most of the things on your list aren't force at all. Exchanging insults was done by both parties. Following someone: not force, headlight flashing: not force, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction: again, not force. Making physical contact is the only POSSIBLE initiation of force here, and even then, only the specifics of what was happening the exact moment that Beasley got shot can tell us whether shooting him was justified.

Gun is always last resort. Proble is that Beasley kept acting irrational again and again(speding up to follow him closely, headlight high-beams or flashin non stop, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction, exchanging insults, getting out of car and making physical contact with car and probably with Stuart). If comments are to be trusted Beasley was shoot point blank range (within arms length), which means Beasley was clearly aggressor.

What time? Stuart should have acted when Beasley chocked him to death or blinded him completely (Beasley damaged 1 Stuarts eye)?
When someone is following you aggressively with high beam lights, pulls next to you insults, gets out of car, starts hitting your car and preventing you from escaping and comes to you, hurts your eye... next thing is probably not going to be "Sir, I apologize for inconvenience but if I may notice you passed me by over full line. Have a good night".


Stuart didnt initiate force. Beasley did.

Still, that doesn't justify killing someone. He had gone home to grab $2000 dollars and was going to flee when he was stopped. To me, that's kind of suspicious. He knows he did something wrong.

[Cleaner44]

John Stuart found guilty in Phoenix road rage retrial
http://www.kpho.com/story/23330285/man-convicted-in-phoenix-road-rage-retrial

It seems that Stuart never had good legal representation.


The case against Stuart encountered lengthy delays. Multiple defense attorneys were appointed and later withdrew. Stuart, who acted as his own attorney, filed numerous pre-trial motions.

[Reason]

Story makes me consider purchasing a dash camera...

[Barrex]

I get it. Touching someone is assault. But still, we have conflicting eyewitness reports that say Beasley was backing away from the vehicle and also that he was close up when he was shot.
Just the fact that there was probably some kind of assault doesn't justify the use of deadly force.
Witness closest to shooting says it was contact, Stuarts eye was damaged, Beasley was shoot point blank range.


You don't know the specifics of the situation. In certain places, it would certainly be inappropriate and potentially very dangerous to pass another car. The fact that it was a solid double yellow line means it probably was not appropriate to pass at that point and could have been dangerous for both drivers. To me, that seems more out of control than Beasley, who was minding his own business before this guy passed him.




Bullshit. If you call following someone closely an initiation of force, then speeding past them is also an initiation of force. Why the double standard? Most of the things on your list aren't force at all. Exchanging insults was done by both parties. Following someone: not force, headlight flashing: not force, parking next to Stuart and turning their car slightly toward Stuarts direction even they would make turn in other direction: again, not force. Making physical contact is the only POSSIBLE initiation of force here, and even then, only the specifics of what was happening the exact moment that Beasley got shot can tell us whether shooting him was justified.

Stalking, harassment and intimidation and at the end assault and battery. Beasley kept escalating situation. Physical contact is not only way of initiation of force.
Passing by is wrong now?



Still, that doesn't justify killing someone. He had gone home to grab $2000 dollars and was going to flee when he was stopped. To me, that's kind of suspicious. He knows he did something wrong.
Suspicious? He was going to see his lawyer and was arrested few blocks from that lawyers house.

Suspicious, probably, some sort of, bullshit.... You use these words and you present your side as absolute. For him to be guilty you need to prove absoultely his guilt.

For him to be innocent he only needs to prove he was in danger and that he shoot in self defense. From what I can read he was in danger. He tried to back away. When aggressor entered his private property and hurt him (his eye) he had right to defend him self and his fiance.


I would like to read official documents about this case. If someone got link to them I would appreciate it.

[thoughtomator]

I can't advocate using a firearm to avoid a fist-fight. Morally.

I can. Fists can be just as deadly as any other weapon. Initiation of violence should always be treated as intent to murder, because you can't know for sure that it won't be.

[tod evans]

I can. Fists can be just as deadly as any other weapon. Initiation of violence should always be treated as intent to murder, because you can't know for sure that it won't be.

We'll have to disagree then.

Initiation of a fist fight will never be treated as intent to murder by me or mine.

[Barrex]

We'll have to disagree then.

Initiation of a fist fight will never be treated as intent to murder by me or mine.

How do you know it is only initiation of fist fight and it is not attention to kill you (grab a knife, rock, gun etc.)? I agree you cant kill someone if he threw snowball at you. There must be limitation on use of (excessive) force. Would you call it a fist fight if one party tries to run away and is cornered, tied in a seat belt in a sitting position while other is pursuing and standing? Is it excessive force if person tries to run away, fails and sees a gun in attackers hand (Stuart claims Beasley had a gun)?

If someone attacked me (fists only) I wouldnt respond with deadly force in general. It is hard to say never if someone can snap your neck with one punch and when you have seen Mujahideens, know what are they capable of and you live/d in same village with them.
If someone attacked my family member and I am concerned that he might kill him I would use rocket launcher to stop them if necessary. I dont think you really mean "never"(wife, child, mother, father, sister, brother...).

[cjm]

We'll have to disagree then.

Initiation of a fist fight will never be treated as intent to murder by me or mine.

"fist fight" sounds mutual. I see your point if two guys are getting belligerent and start throwing blows. If one guy wants to throw punches and the other doesn't, I'd call that the initiation of a beating, not a fist fight. If someone doesn't want to fight, there's nothing wrong with defending yourself with a gun. I'm speaking on general principle here, not the specifics of the AZ case.

[Cleaner44]

We'll have to disagree then.

Initiation of a fist fight will never be treated as intent to murder by me or mine.

You should give this some more thought. Many fist fights end in death. If someone attacks you or me with only their hands, death is a certain possibility, whether accidental or purposeful. Do you remember the fairly recent story about the off duty cop that punched a guy at a bar and it killed him? An violent attack on us is life threatening, regardless of the weapon of guns, knives, hands or whatever. I would not be surprised if more people die of fist fights than terrorism each year.

Take some time and give it more thought.

[Brian4Liberty]

I just wish that Ron Paul's name was not in the case. Unfortunately due to the car magnets being removed, it was somewhat relevant.

Seems that the guy with the gun could have rolled up his window or pointed the gun without shooting as alternatives before shooting. He could also have probably driven away. The guy who got out of his car was definitely in the wrong, and the initiator.

When I was 18, a similar thing happened to me. It was night, I came to a stop at a light. This older guy pulls up next to me on the right and starts yelling at me for no apparent reason. Windows were already rolled up. He got out of his car and reached for my passenger door handle. I pulled forward a bit, he tried to follow, so I just ran the light and kept going. Never saw him again. Some crazy people out there.

[tod evans]

You should give this some more thought. Many fist fights end in death. If someone attacks you or me with only their hands, death is a certain possibility, whether accidental or purposeful. Do you remember the fairly recent story about the off duty cop that punched a guy at a bar and it killed him? An violent attack on us is life threatening, regardless of the weapon of guns, knives, hands or whatever. I would not be surprised if more people die of fist fights than terrorism each year.

Take some time and give it more thought.

I grew up in Navy/biker bars, still run with scooter tramps, this is not a new or unfamiliar scenario for me.

Guns are just not employed for such things as fist fights in my world..

I'm not a big man, nor am I young, and I view the use of firearms by grown men as a response to a fist fight as cowardly.

[tod evans]

"fist fight" sounds mutual. I see your point if two guys are getting belligerent and start throwing blows. If one guy wants to throw punches and the other doesn't, I'd call that the initiation of a beating, not a fist fight. If someone doesn't want to fight, there's nothing wrong with defending yourself with a gun. I'm speaking on general principle here, not the specifics of the AZ case.

Beating a nonviolent person is cowardly too, and someone who attempts to do so needs their ass beaten.

All the hypothetical what-ifs are just that.

I won't go through life with a pistol strapped to my hip, nor will I back down from a fight.

[edit]

I no longer go looking for fights either......But I used to..:o

[ClydeCoulter]

Beating a nonviolent person is cowardly too, and someone who attempts to do so needs their ass beaten.

All the hypothetical what-ifs are just that.

I won't go through life with a pistol strapped to my hip, nor will I back down from a fight.

[edit]

I no longer go looking for fights either......But I used to..:o

You sound like my little brother. We were taught not to fight, in fact told our asses would be beat when we got home if we ever got into a fight.

When I was in Jr High I had finally gotten tired of being picked on, because they knew I wouldn't fight. So, one day a tall dude was my opportunity to get everyone off my back, he started some shit and I lit into him and tore his ass up. Never had a problem again.

When in high school, I saw my 2 brothers getting the same treatment as I used to. So, one day, while smoking a dobby with younger brother, I jumped up, hit him the jaw knocking him to the ground and jump on him and hit him again, then I told him, "don't you ever take shit off of anyone again or you'll answer to me, you hear me?"

He took my advice, in fact he started looking for any reason to get into a fight. I had 20 year old guys telling me that my little brother would not stay down, they would knock his ass to the ground and he would bounce off the ground and come right back until they had to beg him to just stay away. :)

I did end up having another talk to him that I didn't mean he had to go fight everyone. :)

[PaleoPaul]

Appeal.

[cjm]

You sound like my little brother. We were taught not to fight, in fact told our asses would be beat when we got home if we ever got into a fight.

When I was in Jr High I had finally gotten tired of being picked on, because they knew I wouldn't fight. So, one day a tall dude was my opportunity to get everyone off my back, he started some shit and I lit into him and tore his ass up. Never had a problem again.

When in high school, I saw my 2 brothers getting the same treatment as I used to. So, one day, while smoking a dobby with younger brother, I jumped up, hit him the jaw knocking him to the ground and jump on him and hit him again, then I told him, "don't you ever take shit off of anyone again or you'll answer to me, you hear me?"

He took my advice, in fact he started looking for any reason to get into a fight. I had 20 year old guys telling me that my little brother would not stay down, they would knock his ass to the ground and he would bounce off the ground and come right back until they had to beg him to just stay away. :)

I did end up having another talk to him that I didn't mean he had to go fight everyone. :)

One needs to pick his battles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sraL5ERiwZ4

[evilfunnystuff]

I'm not a big man, nor am I young, and I view the use of firearms by grown men as a response to a fist fight as cowardly.

If you initiate violent force on a non-violent person, you should be prepared to die, and if they are innocent you would deserve it.

[RickyJ]

I just wish that Ron Paul's name was not in the case. Unfortunately due to the car magnets being removed, it was somewhat relevant.

Seems that the guy with the gun could have rolled up his window or pointed the gun without shooting as alternatives before shooting. He could also have probably driven away. The guy who got out of his car was definitely in the wrong, and the initiator.

When I was 18, a similar thing happened to me. It was night, I came to a stop at a light. This older guy pulls up next to me on the right and starts yelling at me for no apparent reason. Windows were already rolled up. He got out of his car and reached for my passenger door handle. I pulled forward a bit, he tried to follow, so I just ran the light and kept going. Never saw him again. Some crazy people out there.

There was too much traffic for him to go froward I think. The best solution here was to roll up his window before he got to his car. Then keep the gun handy in case the drunk pulls out a gun. The guy shot was legally drunk though so shooting him did take a drunk off the road that clearly was up to no good by threatening another driver just because he passed him.

[tod evans]

If you initiate violent force on a non-violent person, you should be prepared to die, and if they are innocent you would deserve it.

So you advocate cowardly behavior in response to a fistfight?

Are you one of the trembling ninnies who lives in fear of a bloody nose?

I no longer pick fights, I break too easily...

I have no respect whatsoever for a "man" who is cut from the type of cloth that would advocate death in return for a bloody nose.

These positions are generally advocated by those who have never been bloodied or have never bloodied others, I have seen, first hand, the damage wrought by firearms, I've used my fingers to clamp arterial bleeds....

Nowhere did I advocate initiating violence on a nonviolent person, what I've said repeatedly is those who respond to fisticuffs with firearms are cowards.

Do not try and twist my opinion of men who use pistols instead of fists into me advocating violence!

I have clearly stated that I believe them to be cowardly, nothing more.

[Cleaner44]

So you advocate cowardly behavior in response to a fistfight?

Are you one of the trembling ninnies who lives in fear of a bloody nose?

I no longer pick fights, I break too easily...

I have no respect whatsoever for a "man" who is cut from the type of cloth that would advocate death in return for a bloody nose.

These positions are generally advocated by those who have never been bloodied or have never bloodied others, I have seen, first hand, the damage wrought by firearms, I've used my fingers to clamp arterial bleeds....

Nowhere did I advocate initiating violence on a nonviolent person, what I've said repeatedly is those who respond to fisticuffs with firearms are cowards.

Do not try and twist my opinion of men who use pistols instead of fists into me advocating violence!

I have clearly stated that I believe them to be cowardly, nothing more.

The result of a man with a fist...

NYPD: Man Brain-Dead Following Random Rampage In Union Square (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427001-NYPD-Man-Brain-Dead-Following-Random-Rampage-In-Union-Square)

An attacker armed with nothing more than his fist can bring death upon his victim.

[PaulConventionWV]

Stalking, harassment and intimidation and at the end assault and battery. Beasley kept escalating situation. Physical contact is not only way of initiation of force.
Passing by is wrong now?

If following someone closely is, then yes, that is, too. Do you understand what I'm saying? If following someone with your car is force, then so is passing them because I honestly don't see the distinction there.


Suspicious? He was going to see his lawyer and was arrested few blocks from that lawyers house.

He had also collected $2000 and was going to flee.


Suspicious, probably, some sort of, bullshit.... You use these words and you present your side as absolute. For him to be guilty you need to prove absoultely his guilt.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I am saying. I am not presenting my side as absolute. I am saying we have not proven that Beasley was at fault and should have been shot. Outside of the law, there is always a place for speculation. I don't have to prove beyond a doubt because I don't have the power to convict, but my own analysis says Beasley didn't deserve what he got.


For him to be innocent he only needs to prove he was in danger and that he shoot in self defense. From what I can read he was in danger. He tried to back away. When aggressor entered his private property and hurt him (his eye) he had right to defend him self and his fiance.

Have we really established that Beasley was not backing away from the car at the time he was shot? We still have conflicting eyewitnesses. I will concede that the verdict may have been wrong, but morally, I don't think it was right to shoot Beasley. He could have driven away. He didn't have to sit there and let the situation get out of hand.

EDIT: In fact, now that I think about it, that was probably the pivotal point in the prosecution's case that got the verdict of guilty. The gun was clearly not a last resort for him. Did his car suddenly die or something?

[tod evans]

The result of a man with a fist...

NYPD: Man Brain-Dead Following Random Rampage In Union Square (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427001-NYPD-Man-Brain-Dead-Following-Random-Rampage-In-Union-Square)

An attacker armed with nothing more than his fist can bring death upon his victim.

Not once have I claimed people should engage in fisticuffs, and I certainly have never advocated punching calm/nonviolent people.

Do you believe this guy would have had the opportunity to shoot his attacker had he been armed?

Do you think he would have?

I would immediately jump on an idiot like the puncher, old bones be damned....

What would you do?

[erowe1]

I haven't read the article. But nothing in the OP really indicates that the jury came to the wrong verdict.

[PaulConventionWV]

To me, it seems like Stuart was itching to find a way to apply his second amendment rights to real life situations, so he used the initiation of force as an excuse to use the gun he had in his car to blow the guy's brains out rather than simply drive away.

[thoughtomator]

I no longer pick fights, I break too easily...

I have no respect whatsoever for a "man" who is cut from the type of cloth that would advocate death in return for a bloody nose.

You sound like you're making excuses for your own past poor behavior. I really don't get this machismo of fighting but not for keeps. If that's what you like, do it in a boxing ring.

The right to self defense includes the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Don't want bullets flying your way in response to your unwarranted assault? Don't act like a savage animal. It's really not that hard.

[tod evans]

You sound like you're making excuses for your own past poor behavior. I really don't get this machismo of fighting but not for keeps. If that's what you like, do it in a boxing ring.

The right to self defense includes the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Don't want bullets flying your way in response to your unwarranted assault? Don't act like a savage animal. It's really not that hard.

Who in the hell is advising "unwarranted assault"?

I'm saying "men" who respond to being punched with gunplay are cowards.

[PaulConventionWV]

You sound like you're making excuses for your own past poor behavior. I really don't get this machismo of fighting but not for keeps. If that's what you like, do it in a boxing ring.

The right to self defense includes the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Don't want bullets flying your way in response to your unwarranted assault? Don't act like a savage animal. It's really not that hard.

Not when there are other options. Is the concept of deadly force as a last resort lost on us here? It doesn't matter what the situation, it should always be a last resort.

[specsaregood]

I'm saying "men" who respond to being punched with gunplay are cowards.

This attitude is the reason I said at the very beginning of the Zimmerman trial that he was actually lucky to have an all women jury.

[tod evans]

This attitude is the reason I said at the very beginning of the Zimmerman trial that he was actually lucky to have an all women jury.

Fuck Zimmerman and Travon too!

[thoughtomator]

Who in the hell is advising "unwarranted assault"?

I'm saying "men" who respond to being punched with gunplay are cowards.

You're 100% absolutely wrong. It's the men who punch others who are the cowards. The number of men who throw the first punch at a bigger man are negligible. They always pick someone smaller that they think they can beat.

There's an old saying that God created Man, and Colt made them equal.

It's the guy who wants weaker victims to assault who's the coward, and that's always the person initiating the violence. Always.

[tod evans]

You're 100% absolutely wrong. It's the men who punch others who are the cowards. The number of men who throw the first punch at a bigger man are negligible. They always pick someone smaller that they think they can beat.

There's an old saying that God created Man, and Colt made them equal.

It's the guy who wants weaker victims to assault who's the coward, and that's always the person initiating the violence. Always.

That approach didn't seem to work out so well for the dude in the OP now did it?

G-ahead and strap a piece to your side.

I'm not going to.

BTW, Ever been in a fight? Ever seen a man shot? Stabbed?

Violence in theory isn't at all like real life, fistfights are not attempted murder no matter how you try to twist it.

[dannno]

Sounds like Beasley was driving really slow cause he was drunk and Stuart got impatient and passed him - as long as there were no other cars coming towards them it wasn't really Beasley's place to get mad at Stuart in the first place, especially if he is driving drunk he should be cautious and not try and get into altercations when he likely has such poor judgement. I don't neccessarily even agree he shouldn't be driving, if he drives safely, and driving slow is fine but you can't get mad if people pass you.

If Beasley reached his hands inside his car and was threatening him in a violent manner and was drunk I don't know how much defense he should have.

[presence]

In fact I learned this is why Stuart was charged with
"drive by shooting"

http://www.redrecondite.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/boiling-blood.jpg
Expressly so the county could steal his SUV.

[FloralScent]

I can't advocate using a firearm to avoid a fist-fight. Morally.

However cops regularly shoot people for much less.. Apparently that's "legal".

A street fight is never a "fist-fight".

[PaulConventionWV]

You're 100% absolutely wrong. It's the men who punch others who are the cowards. The number of men who throw the first punch at a bigger man are negligible. They always pick someone smaller that they think they can beat.

There's an old saying that God created Man, and Colt made them equal.

It's the guy who wants weaker victims to assault who's the coward, and that's always the person initiating the violence. Always.

That, sir, is just common sense. You ALWAYS pick fights with someone you think you can beat. If you didn't think you could beat them, why would you pick a fight with them? It doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.

[PaulConventionWV]

In fact I learned this is why Stuart was charged with
"drive by shooting"

http://www.redrecondite.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/boiling-blood.jpg
Expressly so the county could steal his SUV.


What does that picture have to do with anything?

[kcchiefs6465]

A street fight is never a "fist-fight".
There are people who still respect the nature of a fight. Those that don't suckerpunch people and run away, don't bully people or try to pick fights, don't beat on someone when they're down.

They're few and far between with this culture of punks and pussies but they do exist.

In the streets many fights that should have just been that end up with people being killed. No one can take an asswhooping and leave it at that. Perpetuates a system of death and gun violence. Probably mostly because their fathers weren't around to instill some common decency on their asses.

A street fight might not be a fist fight simply by definition but there are many people who square up and fairly box in the street. They settle their differences there and that's the end of it. You're right though, most times that isn't the case.

[fr33]

So you advocate cowardly behavior in response to a fistfight?

Are you one of the trembling ninnies who lives in fear of a bloody nose?

I no longer pick fights, I break too easily...

I have no respect whatsoever for a "man" who is cut from the type of cloth that would advocate death in return for a bloody nose.

These positions are generally advocated by those who have never been bloodied or have never bloodied others, I have seen, first hand, the damage wrought by firearms, I've used my fingers to clamp arterial bleeds....

Nowhere did I advocate initiating violence on a nonviolent person, what I've said repeatedly is those who respond to fisticuffs with firearms are cowards.

Do not try and twist my opinion of men who use pistols instead of fists into me advocating violence!

I have clearly stated that I believe them to be cowardly, nothing more.
The cowardly act is to attack someone who hasn't aggressed against you. (Just using the word "you" as an example).

Though I've had my share of them, I'm not obligated to take an ass-whuppin just because some savage decides to assault me. When they decide to attack a person they are putting their own lives at risk.



With that said, I couldn't make a judgement on this story in the OP. I'd need to be on the jury.

[Danke]

This attitude is the reason I said at the very beginning of the Zimmerman trial that he was actually lucky to have an all women jury.

Or old men...

[Danke]

Sounds like Beasley was driving really slow cause he was drunk and Stuart got impatient and passed him - as long as there were no other cars coming towards them it wasn't really Beasley's place to get mad at Stuart in the first place, especially if he is driving drunk he should be cautious and not try and get into altercations when he likely has such poor judgement. I don't neccessarily even agree he shouldn't be driving, if he drives safely, and driving slow is fine but you can't get mad if people pass you.

If Beasley reached his hands inside his car and was threatening him in a violent manner and was drunk I don't know how much defense he should have.

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDrzMGdYWZc

[Pericles]

What does that picture have to do with anything?

Cooked up charge

[thoughtomator]

That approach didn't seem to work out so well for the dude in the OP now did it?

Looks to me like he made a minimum of two other mistakes that were the difference in that case, the biggest of which was not securing proper representation.

[Brian4Liberty]

What does that picture have to do with anything?

I don't know, but it looks tasty...

[Brian4Liberty]

If tested with the gom jabbar, both persons in this case would probably prove to be animal, and not human.

[presence]

What does that picture have to do with anything?

"makes my blood boil"