Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Again merely ypour ;lurid imagination that thatwas his intention. It is apparent to anyone with a minimal mental capacity to evaluate evidence thatshe would not like his leashing her dog, since she refused to do what she was legally obligated to do. That is apparent. There is no evidence he intended to go beyond that, just your totally biased imagination. She could have ended the situation at any point simply by putting her dog on a leash. He was totally within his rights. Instead she escalated it beyond all reasonable bounds as the city thinks. As pretty nearly everybody but you thinks. Even she now thinks that.

Wrong again. He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.

You are unlikely to remain so smug about your lynch mob once people start taking matters into their own hands instead of calling the police when a minority threatens them. And I'll be here telling you "I told you so" when you start complaining.

she wouldn't obey the law. Her fault. And hs wouldn't like ANYTHING that made her okbey the law and leash the dog. ZERO evidence he intended to kill the dog. It was all on her, as the NY law folk are investigating. You're really running a vicious imagination here.

Or,

People could obey the law in the first place and leash their animal.

Her having her dog off the leash does not justify trying to kill her dog, and she has every right to defend her pet.

Sure it does.

Just like you advocating not calling police and taking matters into their own hands.

You're clearly the one advocating a REAL lynch mob here against innocent people of color.

Wrong again. People have the right to protect themselves from dangerous threats.

Wrong. Not having her dog on the leash does not justify this guy killing her pet. And she had every right to protect it from this nutcase.



Wrong again. He said that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.



Wrong again. People have the right to protect their pets from deranged killers.



And now the next person who is threatened by a minority is going to take matters into their own hands instead of calling the police.

You repeat your illogical evidence free imaginings over and over again. they don't become true by repetition.

Wrong again. There is solid evidence that this thug told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then tried to lure her pet away.

Wrong again. Not having her pet on a leash does not justify murdering her pet.

I know that progressives are despicable, but this is getting pretty silly.



People have the right to be safe from threats.

You want to apply a two sided approach to only one side.

If you advocate not calling the police and taking matters into your own hands, then the one who is breaking the law will be the one paying for the crime first. In this instance, since you will agree that Ms. Cooper broke the law when she had an unleashed pet in a city park which is against the law, is is only fair and just to shoot the dog first.

There, problem solved.

Self defense is not about punishment for a crime. It is about protection from attack.

Letting her dog off the leash is not a grave threat that justifies lethal force to protect against.

An attempt to murder her pet is a grave threat that justifies lethal force to protect against.

I can tell that you are eager to see harm come to innocent people, but they have the right to protect themselves whether you like it or not.

Hey, I fully believe in 2A rights. I have a CC license. That dog was off a leash, lunging at me, with intent to harm.

One ******* dead dog.

All legal, no cops.

Whether YOU like it or not.

The dog's owner would be within their rights to shoot you to keep you from murdering their dog.

Not if I get them first. Self protection nowadays.

Shoot the woman first. The dog is completely innocent...

People have the right to protect themselves from people who try to murder them.

Double tap.

Got it.