justinb138

Normally, I'd be inclined to believe testimony by a police officer, but that fact can't be ignored. How can shooting someone in the back be classified as self defense? I'm not certain with Texas law, but I think if someone tried to rob my house, and I used my gun to defend my self, when the cops showed up and found the guy shot in the back, I'd probably be arrested on suspicion of murder.

Yup. It's possible, but I'm not sure how likely. I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't go so well. People do crazy things when in sticky situations. It could happen, but I think it is more likely he would fire if provoked. If he is robbing a store, his goal is money, not killing people. True. I had to sit here and think about the possible outcomes of each action, but I doubt I would have that luxury in a real life scenario.

You haven't proven that it's cheaper or easier not to. Nice spin on that one. I didn't say punishement wasn't necessary, I said capital punishement wasn't necessary, even if it is deserved.

Agreed; to clarify, a move that would indicate that he IS going to shoot somebody... I would have to be pretty damn sure he was going to start shooting before I'd do anything, as pulling a weapon is probably going to make the situation worse for everyone involved. (ie. the guy was all over the news the night before becuase he robbed a store and shot a bunch of people) IF I was sure he was going to start shooting, AND he didn't know I was there, AND I had a clear shot that I was 100% sure I could hit, AND there was no possibility of hitting anyone else, only then would I even consider action. Possible Outcomes that I see: 1: You take a shot, miss, and he starts shooting, people die. 2. You take a shot, miss him, hit someone else, he starts shooting, people die. 3. You do nothing, wait until he leaves, get license plate, call police. Police pursue/make arrest later/etc. No one gets hurt. (Most likely scenario) 4. You take a shot, hit him, he goes down, you get lucky, no one gets hurt (except the guy robbing the place) In this situation, the odds wouldn't be in my favor. When other people's lives are involved, it's a completely different story (as opposed to someone breaking into your house with a gun, where the only people likely to get injured are yourself and the guy that broke in). I very rarely leave my house with a gun, just so you know.

No, you would run the risk of missing and possibly hitting somone else, or drawing fire from the person, which could then hit someone else. Not sure what you mean, after all, armed robbery is pretty threatening already. Let him leave, get the license plate on the car, give it to the police, let them do their job. The gun is a last resort. It is the job of the police to get the suspect, not anyone elses. If he started shooting it would be a different story.

Because there has to be some form of SS. We would have people dying in the streets if we did not. Some form of SS? When I'm old enough to be able to use it, I doubt there is going to be any money left at the current rate the gov't is spending it. If the money I'm paying right now for SS was put into a private account, I think I'd have a much better return after 45 years than I would leaving it in the gov't hands.

Real beer.

Agreed. If you're being serious: Do you actually read the posts before you respond?

I wish more people shared your view.

Hell, with all the surgery he's had, I'm not sure he can be classified as human, much less black or white. If I had kids, I wouldn't either, especially given the history of his conduct with children. I'm not sure that he did buy anyone a car, but I think I heard that during the show about him a while back. I think got them a car, as well as helped them with medical expenses (I think the kid was sick). I'm interested to see how the trial will turn out, as I don't think either side has a really good case. Honestly, I think it will eventually be dismissed only to be followed by a massive civil suit.

I would think that most of it goes to the court costs/appeals/etc. It would be interesting to see what the actual costs are. If life in prison were more expensive than CP, my opinion on CP would probably change.

By reasonable I mean: Cheaper (kallend has provided those stats), and easier (I doubt you'll find a state where is is easier to get a death sentance than a life sentance). Why spend the extra money just to see them dead? Agreed. I wouldn't say that it's not justified, just not necessary.

Didn't he buy the family of one of the kids a car or something like that?

How many appeals are the with a CP case as opposed to when the sentance is life? I agree the system could be better run. Personally I don't really care, but it is an added bonus. I wouldn't disagree, but I think for alot of them, spending the rest of their life being someone's bitch would be worse than death. In some cases. I doubt that in a case severe enough to warrant CP that they would though. What good reasons are there to execute someone, when there are more reasonable alternatives?

He is stupid. He knew the situation he put himself into a while back with the first accusations (and the settlement that followed), then continued his questionable behavior throughout the years. My opinion: guilty.

I don't either, but if a life sentance w/o parole is easier, cheaper, and will shut up the people complaining about it, why not just do that?

Why can't someone propose some legislation regulating parenting? I doubt that this proposal has anything to do with protecting children anyway. Personally, I think that the broadcast companies are losing out to cable networks (who can have less restrictions and can therefore broadcast more "entertaining" content) and trying to even the playing field. Using the "we want to save the children" is just the excuse that they think congress will buy. What a waste of time. Edit: cause I can't type today

It seems to me that it would be hazardous in the plane is well. If there is an emergency, how can you hear the pilot yelling at you if you're listening to music?

Lousy Smarch weather. Smarch?

Wasn't there a movie based on this one?

I disagree however. Having a Cypres is something people should be aware of and act accordingly. I would have had at least one cypres fire if not two if I jumped one. That could get expensive not to mention dangerous. If I got one I would surely change a few things, mainly decision altitudes and when to go straight for silver. I think the point being made was that many gun owners view the gun in the same way as the cypres (in general) - simply a back up device that they don't plan on using, or change their behavior because they have it. If there is ever a place I didn't feel good about going to w/o a firearm, I wouldn't go there with one.

Likewise, I refuse to live my life in that way. A life lived in fear and all that. No gun owner I know lives in fear if they don't have a gun with them, even if they do normally carry them. Why do you think that just because someone chooses to carry a gun sometimes that they are so afraid of being with out it?

Congrats man! I was out there on Sunday and saw your'e name up on the board. Weather sucked all day so we didn't get any loads up . Gonna be out next weekend?

Chalk? Ouch. During my HS years, I had a bad habit of chewing on things (pen caps, paper, etc...) as some kind of a stress reaction, so the pringles can didn't seem so weird to me, but chalk is just going a little too far. People like that piss me off. Unfortunatly that attitude seems all too common lately.

I dunno, it's happened to me before (very rarely though), and she is undoubtedly in better shape than I am. Does it happen every time she sneezes?