> Well, suddenly the Baggers are in favor of "gun control" again.

Sockpuppet wrote:

Let me ask you this.

Is the race of the offender an important criminal stat?

Still refusing to answer his very simple question about your absurd 'analysis' garbage:

"why did you make up a metric that gives a "rate" that decreases as the target population size grows?

I've already pointed out that expressing rates using data from disjoint data sets (in this case, attackers and victims) is highly problematic and prone to giving you results that are utterly meaningless - so if you are going to do this you need some supportable and clearly articulated rationale for doing so. Especially in cases like this when it's an adjustment that clearly skews the numbers in a specific direction.

So the question remains - why did you do this? Especially since this isn't some tangential issue - it's absolutely central to the headline results you originally presented."

Why are you so afraid of answering that?

Don't bother, I already know, as does everyone here looking at your racist bullshyt; you're a dishonest hypocrite scumbag fraud. Like all libfilth vermin. No exceptions.

wrote:

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

wrote:

Again:

"why did you make up a metric that gives a "rate" that decreases as the target population size grows?

I've already pointed out that expressing rates using data from disjoint data sets (in this case, attackers and victims) is highly problematic and prone to giving you results that are utterly meaningless - so if you are going to do this you need some supportable and clearly articulated rationale for doing so. Especially in cases like this when it's an adjustment that clearly skews the numbers in a specific direction.

So the question remains - why did you do this? Especially since this isn't some tangential issue - it's absolutely central to the headline results you originally presented."

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

Spanky wrote:

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

I'm quoting AMT, noticing that you are terrified of answering the question, then stamping your feet and making clearly false statements, while still insistently refusing to answer his question.

By all means, keep it up. It shows for the bazillionth time what a fuqing racist you are, even though you falsely claim to be opposed to racism.

You are a conclusively, repeatedly, thoroughly documented dishonest hypocrite scumbag fraud.

wrote:

I'm quoting AMT, noticing that you are terrified of answering the question, then stamping your feet and making clearly false statements, while still insistently refusing to answer his question.

By all means, keep it up. It shows for the bazillionth time what a fuqing racist you are, even though you falsely claim to be opposed to racism.

You are a conclusively, repeatedly, thoroughly documented dishonest hypocrite scumbag fraud.

And I am replying to that:

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

Cold, dead hands. Thanks.

Yrah. Still refusing to answer the valid questions. Your severe mental defects on display yet again.

wrote:

Yrah. Still refusing to answer the valid questions. Your severe mental defects on display yet again.

The question was not valid. Which is what I said 38 times.

Sockpuppet wrote:

You are describing a problem that doesn’t exist in the data. It’s either entirely fabricated or you don’t understand the data. You’ve provided no explanation of the mistake in any terms that can be discussed.

False. He clearly did. You are a total fraud.

Racist modfilth assholes gonna racist, and falsely claim they are opposed to racism.

Back on the original topic, an extremely poorly written article that contradicts the video posted (now with 'sign-in' restriction) in many ways, but did show that the ooking sheboon was within her rights to blast the fuqer, who was astoundingly stupid to continually menace and threaten someone pointing a firearm at him:

A Broward woman who shot and killed a 62-year-old veteran during a dispute over a parking space at a North Lauderdale Walmart cannot be charged because she is immune under Florida’s stand-your-ground law, the Broward State Attorney’s Office announced Thursday.

The woman, Melissa Payne, shot Lauderhill resident Bart Diguglielmo in the abdomen as he approached her in the parking lot of the Walmart in the 7900 block of West McNab Road.

Assistant State Attorney Stephen Zaccor filed a closeout memorandum outlining the state’s decision not to file charges against Payne, concluding that she acted in self-defense and the state’s stand-your-ground law immunizes her from prosecution.

Prosecutors also released surveillance and bodycam video of the entire incident, from the moment the two drivers pulled up to the same space to the time Payne gave a statement to a deputy while Diguglielmo sat up in an empty parking space waiting for paramedics to arrive.

Under the law, Zaccor noted, Payne does not have to prove she is immune from prosecution: “The state has to prove she is not.” In this case, Zaccor concluded, the state could not eliminate self-defense as a motive for the shooting.

The altercation between Diguglielmo, an Army veteran, and Payne unfolded about 12:30 p.m. on June 30. The facts surrounding the shooting are “as tragic as they are absurd,” Zaccor wrote.

Video footage showed Payne and Diguglielmo both exiting their vehicles after trying to park in the same spot. Diguglielmo “inexplicably” abandoned his car, grabbed a shopping cart and entered the store, while Payne parked in the disputed space.

A short time later, Diguglielmo came out of the store and, according to two witnesses, told Payne he was “gonna [expletive] your [expletive] up.” A second witness told police Diguglielmo threatened to “mess her car up.”

Diguglielmo got into his car and drove off, parked in a handicapped spot, then came back to Payne, who was still parked in her vehicle with her niece’s infant daughter. Diguglielmo stayed under a nearby tree, apparently waiting for Payne to come out, according to Zaccor’s memo. After nearly a minute, he started to approach Payne’s car.

Payne got out holding a cellphone in one hand and a gun in the other, warning Diguglielmo she would shoot if he continued to approach her. “Don’t come near my car,” she yelled. “Don’t try that.”

Diguglielmo backed off at first, then continued walking toward Payne.

The standoff continued with Diguglielmo assertively walking toward Payne and apparently threaten to damage her car while Payne backed away and repeatedly warned him to stop.

In a statement at the scene, Payne told police that despite her warnings, Diguglielmo taunted her, saying “What are you going to do?” and “Do it, do it! Shoot!”

Finally, as Diguglielmo approached her on the driver’s side of her car, Payne opened fire. She then placed the gun on the roof of her car, and waited for a deputy to arrive, circling the wounded veteran while remaining on her cell phone with her husband, who listened to the whole exchange. Payne did not resist when a deputy arrived, placed her in handcuffs, read her Miranda warning and begin to question her.

Diguglielmo died a short time later after being taken to Broward Health Medical Center.

Zaccor concluded that he would not be able to prove in court that Payne did not act out of a reasonable fear for her life and safety, and therefore she fit the requirements of the stand-your-ground law.