No, I have not "burnished your argument with several facts that were not in the linked article", Here is the cut and paste from the linked article:
Police say Harris admitted to punching Armstrong but said the man swung at him first.
Armstrong had a criminal history of shoplifting, trespassing and obstructing police.
Was there just one restroom? Was there just one stall? Did the dead man observe the woman go into the restroom first, or did he not know she was in there?
I did not post any comment or argument containing references to restrooms, stalls, who followed or observed who going where. These are posts by OTHER FReepers, not I, Navy Patriot.
I assumed you would answer for yourself - which you did.
And I assumed you would attribute OTHER FReepers posts to me - which you did.
At this point I will point out that I have made no argument for or against Mr. Harris' actions at all, but you have accused me of making the arguments, comments and posts that OTHER FReepers have made on this thread.
I have made only three comments, they are: Very sad; Trial by Jury; and my opinion that Harris looked remorseful in his photo.
Your comment: The flip side of the coin.... is an an entirely different and fictitious scenario where you supply the facts the way that you want them and make suppositions based on that construct.
Of course you are so busy trying to reassign comments and fabricate facts that you design a very poor construct, and I shoot it down with logical supposition using the actual information in the linked article you said wasn't there.
Why should I believe the dead man punched first?
Because it is an an entirely different and fictitious scenario supposition, and there the opposite supposition has equal validity.
The imaginary “gun” I invented for my Comment is really superfluous to my basic argument. Any “weapon,” including fists, will do.
Sorry, you're stuck with the gun and it's consequences because it is an an entirely different and fictitious scenario sloppily designed by you.
The dead guy has a pretty poor advocate in you
My Bottom Line - I did not read anything in the posted article that makes me think the dead man did not have a legal right to defend himself with lethal force against the violent father.
And in your haste to repudiate me you failed to notice that I never advocated or argued for or against either party or joined in bashing either party while you torpedoed your guy.
It was you imaginary: The flip side of the coin....
Re: “In your haste to repudiate me you failed to notice that I never advocated or argued for or against either party...”
Re: “I have made no argument for or against Mr. Harris’ actions at all...”
In Comment #1, you post a photo of the dead man and title it: “The Pedophile.”
You have no evidence for that claim.
In Comment #11, you write: “The Father, Mr. Harris, looks genuinely remorseful...”
No possible advocacy there, right?
In Comment #56, you write: “The recent criminal acts of the dead man against Mr. Harris’ Daughter and Mr. Harris himself...”
Mr. Harris - the murderer - is the only person who has claimed that the dead man committed criminal acts.
As to throwing the first punch, Mr. Harris - the murderer - is the only source for that claim.
Re: “You have burnished your argument with several facts that were not in the linked article.”
In Comment #56, you write: “The dead man had a criminal history of shoplifting, trespassing and obstructing police...”
You fail to note that all three of those violations might have been misdemeanors without violence, in which case the dead man could legally own, and probably carry, a gun.
As to restrooms, stalls, and who followed or observed who, your “Pedophile” label clearly indicates that you have closed your mind on those three unanswered questions.
The purpose of my original Comment #45 to was point out that 90% of the people on this thread would vote “Not Guilty” for Mr. Harris, but the same people would be outraged if the dead man had lawfully killed Mr. Harris in self-defense.