Recommended Posts
Hayfield 0
Just because a person has a liberal outlook does not mean they are antigun or even non violent. What liberals seem to mind are retards with guns, like Dick Cheney. This guy was a murderous retard with a gun. However, I doubt the codger would have killed the kid if he had to chase him down and stab him.
I think a good old-fashioned public hanging for this bastardo is in order.
I think a good old-fashioned public hanging for this bastardo is in order.
"Remember the First Commandment: Don't Fuck Up!"
-Crusty Old Pete
-Crusty Old Pete
QuoteQuoteand he is a danger to others.
Playing devil's advocate here, he has functioned in society for some time now and has nothing in his record to indicate that he is any different from anyone else in the populace or any more of a threat.
I know a lot of people who have never done anything that would cause them to be arrested, but they've done untold damage to others anyway.
I also know a fair number of people who could've and probably should've ended up in jail for things they've done, but they were clever or lucky.
Not all criminals are in jail, not all those in jail are criminals.
And some people are just destructive to everything and everyone around them.
QuoteQuotebut my reason for labeling him a nut case relates to my experiences in dealing with control freaks and the elderly,
So if I understand you correctly, you are just making a generalization?
I'm saying that based on what I read in the various articles and my own experience with similar situations, he appears to me to be a lifelong control freak who slipped over the edge.
QuoteQuoteShooting someone for walking on your lawn, however, is a pretty good indicator that you are not thinking clearly.
Again, depends on what state you are in. In Texas, you are well within your right to shoot people who are on your property without permission. I seem to remember a case where a repo man was shot dead trying to repo a car in Texas and the shooter was later exhonerated.
Was the repo man mistaken for a car thief?
QuoteMy opinion is that there is more to it than a good kid walking on the wrong lawn. As to the shooting itself, I cannot knowledgably say if it was justified or not until more information is made available.
The early reports all indicate that the kid was a good kid. Later reports indicate he was shot on his own lawn, not on the shooter's lawn.
But you're right. We do need more information.
rl
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
unformed 0
QuoteJust because a person has a liberal outlook does not mean they are antigun or even non violent. What liberals seem to mind are retards with guns, like Dick Cheney. This guy was a murderous retard with a gun. However, I doubt the codger would have killed the kid if he had to chase him down and stab him.
I think a good old-fashioned public hanging for this bastardo is in order.
Liberals might no be exactly anti-gun, but they are the people are anti-constitution. They keep wanting to take all of our rights away. For example, they've already taken away the right of a business owner to allow smoking in his privately-owned business. That's just one example. I also know that all these anti-gun advocates are going to pounce on this, even though it was a 410 shotgun which is commonly used for hunting.
These are just examples. It is the liberal state of mind that is going to ruin this country.
This ad space for sale.
QuoteQuoteOh, believe me, Bill could rig up something that would make it look like an accident or a suicide. Best to be rid of people like this. They never learn and will only take advantage of someone trying to be nice to them.
This Bill sounds rather scary.
Richards
Yes he is. He is somewhat of a mad scientist. You don't want to get on his bad side, believe me.
-
JohnRich 4
QuoteIn Texas, you are well within your right to shoot people who are on your property without permission.
Incorrect. Quote:
9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property;
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41 (deadly force against people); and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft
during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or
recover the land or property would expose the actor or another
to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
JohnRich 4
QuoteThis certainly does not help the NRA...
Blaming the NRA for something they didn't do, does not help your reputation for presenting facts or demonstrating logic.
"The greatest danger of bombsis in the explosion of stupidity that they provoke."
- Octave Mirbeau (1850-1917), French journalist, author.
QuoteI am merely saying that we need to hear his side before we label him a wingnut (I presume you want to give him due process). If there was a pattern of harrassment and intimidation, and a jury finds that they where deliberately harrassing him on the night in question then thay could take that into account when deciding whether they want to convict him of murder or a lesser charge.
We don't need due process to declare him a wingnut. That's self evident.
We do need a trial to decide whether or not to fry his ass. He could be convicted of premediated murder, or as low as manslaughter.
But I doubt we'll see this 13yo kid described as a menacing stalker. More likely he's the typical young kid that would have pissed his pants if the wingnut had placed the shotgun barrel up against him.
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
> land or tangible, movable property if . . . (3) he reasonably believes
> that (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
> any other means;
Well, there ya go. If you see a teenager on a bicycle in the street, and he's headed straight for your grass, and he doesn't stop instantly upon a loud bellowing of "stay offa my grass you lousy kid!" you are within your rights to blow a 30.06 hole in his head. After all, unless you kill him, your grass could be damaged, and you would be left with disgusting ruts in your lawn - and a criminal would be free to viciously assault the pristine lawns of other victims.
Now, if you see him working on a bicycle in the next yard, he may then take the bike and use it to destroy your lawn - so a pre-emptive defensive killing may be in order. Of course, that's not covered under the above law. Time for the NRA to get involved. The rights of gun-owning landowners are literally being trampled by teenagers on bicycles!
> land or tangible, movable property if . . . (3) he reasonably believes
> that (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
> any other means;
Well, there ya go. If you see a teenager on a bicycle in the street, and he's headed straight for your grass, and he doesn't stop instantly upon a loud bellowing of "stay offa my grass you lousy kid!" you are within your rights to blow a 30.06 hole in his head. After all, unless you kill him, your grass could be damaged, and you would be left with disgusting ruts in your lawn - and a criminal would be free to viciously assault the pristine lawns of other victims.
Now, if you see him working on a bicycle in the next yard, he may then take the bike and use it to destroy your lawn - so a pre-emptive defensive killing may be in order. Of course, that's not covered under the above law. Time for the NRA to get involved. The rights of gun-owning landowners are literally being trampled by teenagers on bicycles!
JohnRich 4
Quotethere's got to be another side to the story. I don't think the man would have just one out and shot the kid over a piece of grass. There has to be more to the story. The kid was probably harassing the guy...
Maybe, maybe not. You should not presume that there aren't crotchety old men out there, who suffer from mental illness, and who won't kill people just out of imagined wrongs committed against them, which exist only in their own sick minds.
I have personal experience with such a neighbor. He was a paranoid schizophrenic, delusional, and imagined that every person in the town whom he encountered, was conspiring against him. This included checkout clerks at stores, neighbors, even the TV news people. And one day, because of all the imagined wrongs committed against him, he went out and shot 18 people, killing six. One of the injured was my 14-year-old son, who had done absolutely nothing to taunt the man, either then or previously - he was simply playing basketball in his own yard.
Story: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/74656/op-74656.pdf
The story in this thread is a an exact duplicate of what happened to my son, with the only difference being that my son was lucky enough to recover from his injuries.
I know it's natural to assume that people don't just go off and shoot others for no reason. And therefore it's also natural to assume that the kid must have done something to provoke the man into shooting. I'm here to tell you that those natural assumptions can be false. Don't go automatically blaming the kid unless you really have some facts to prove it. I've lived through that false blame, and it ain't fun.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteI am merely saying that we need to hear his side before we label him a wingnut (I presume you want to give him due process). If there was a pattern of harrassment and intimidation, and a jury finds that they where deliberately harrassing him on the night in question then thay could take that into account when deciding whether they want to convict him of murder or a lesser charge.
We don't need due process to declare him a wingnut. That's self evident.
We do need a trial to decide whether or not to fry his ass. He could be convicted of premediated murder, or as low as manslaughter.
But I doubt we'll see this 13yo kid described as a menacing stalker. More likely he's the typical young kid that would have pissed his pants if the wingnut had placed the shotgun barrel up against him.
I think he was 15, and he might have been large enough at that age to intimidate an older man.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
JohnRich 4
Quote>A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
> land or tangible, movable property if . . . (3) he reasonably believes
> that (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
> any other means;
Well, there ya go. If you see a teenager on a bicycle in the street, and he's headed straight for your grass, and he doesn't stop instantly upon a loud bellowing of "stay offa my grass you lousy kid!" you are within your rights to blow a 30.06 hole in his head.
You omitted a few "if"s and "and"s in your interpretation of the Texas deadly force statute. You're wrong.
billvon 3,120
>You're wrong.
Protecting criminals, John? Should we hang "Criminal Protection Zone" signs around your house?
Protecting criminals, John? Should we hang "Criminal Protection Zone" signs around your house?
Amazon 7
QuoteLiberals might no be exactly anti-gun, but they are the people are anti-constitution.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
What flavor of cool aid are you drinking.......
How many of the ULTRA RIGHT .. absolutely HATE the ACLU... and all they do is support people who are having constitutional issues.. over and over ..HELL they even supported the fucking KKK to march in a predominately jewish suburb of Chicago....they constantly fight for peoples free speech rights etc....even the hallowed gun rights in the constitution have been fought for.
Dont you just hate it when liberals support the constitution like that????
Playing devil's advocate here, he has functioned in society for some time now and has nothing in his record to indicate that he is any different from anyone else in the populace or any more of a threat.
So if I understand you correctly, you are just making a generalization?
Again, depends on what state you are in. In Texas, you are well within your right to shoot people who are on your property without permission. I seem to remember a case where a repo man was shot dead trying to repo a car in Texas and the shooter was later exhonerated.
My opinion is that there is more to it than a good kid walking on the wrong lawn. As to the shooting itself, I cannot knowledgably say if it was justified or not until more information is made available.
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites