RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!!

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 4:16:57 PM)
The link to the claims you made about me personally, that you have been running away from for days now. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: And we already know that you'll simply handwave away the request that you back up any of your accusations with a link. What link? What assertions? What proof are you whining for? Speak up dear boy, I love to drown people with links. [;)]

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 4:27:14 PM)
Oh ffs.... they are all over these boards. No need to link em up, everyone sees them. You have become well known to slamming anyone a racist who disagrees with you. I in no way said the KKK didnt use guns. Let me show you just how you twist things, since you want to try and say I am making that up. [;)] My statement..... No, the KKK killed off black people, and anyone who dared to support a black person against the KKK. But they didnt often waste their precious bullets to do so. Fear was part of their make up. From that you came up with the following..... quote: I'll take your word that you find the thought of Rosewood, of Medgar Evers, of MLK being shot 'comical', while playing that R 2.0 game that guns weren't used against black people, and spinning that Jim Crow denier revisionist history. I never said guns were never used. But, for me to fit into your racial theme, you had to twist, fold and mutilate what I said.... Its a lame attempt, almost comical.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:07:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My agreement on that case disproves your assumption of a kneejerk reaction to defend the guy with the gun. So you admit that if there is any question you want the guy with the gun to go away of be beaten to death. The juries have consistently agreed with me that makes me mainstream and you out in left field. The standard in most places to sustain a self defense claim is by the preponderance of the evidence. So if there is strong doubt then yes the person should go away. Juries and judges do not consistently agree with either of us. That is the problem with these SYG laws. Go back up thread and read that investigation bythe Tampa paper. And the only time I've said a guy with a gun could have been legally beaten to death was this case. He had committed assault with a deadly weapon and was clearly in danger of escalating further. The floaters had no avenue of retreat so they had the legal right to kill to keep him from killing them. Their failure to take that action is what got one of them killed. You mean merely subduing wouldn't have done? Are you bright enough to realize that subduing would have had to happen before they could have beaten him to death? Following your advice would have them all in jail for continuing after he was helpless but of course since they only killed a sub human gun owner you would want them freed. Taking a rock and smashing it into a man's head requires him to be subdued? What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:12:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My agreement on that case disproves your assumption of a kneejerk reaction to defend the guy with the gun. So you admit that if there is any question you want the guy with the gun to go away of be beaten to death. The juries have consistently agreed with me that makes me mainstream and you out in left field. The standard in most places to sustain a self defense claim is by the preponderance of the evidence. So if there is strong doubt then yes the person should go away. Juries and judges do not consistently agree with either of us. That is the problem with these SYG laws. Go back up thread and read that investigation bythe Tampa paper. And the only time I've said a guy with a gun could have been legally beaten to death was this case. He had committed assault with a deadly weapon and was clearly in danger of escalating further. The floaters had no avenue of retreat so they had the legal right to kill to keep him from killing them. Their failure to take that action is what got one of them killed. You mean merely subduing wouldn't have done? Are you bright enough to realize that subduing would have had to happen before they could have beaten him to death? Following your advice would have them all in jail for continuing after he was helpless but of course since they only killed a sub human gun owner you would want them freed. Taking a rock and smashing it into a man's head requires him to be subdued? What kind of fantasy world are you living in? You specifically said beaten him to death. Stand off and throw rocks and he will get shots off you just raised the body count except in your fantasy world. Try to close and you get just what happened when they try to close.

jlf1961 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:32:03 PM)
Okay, guy with a rock versus guy with loaded gun. Guy with rock has to close distance, thus guy with gun hits him with numerous bullets eliminating guy with rock. Other people standing around doing nothing could have probably engaged guy with gun while he was shooting guy with rock. Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. 1 You do not approach an angry person pointing a firearm he has already fired, you back away from him, minimizing your threat to his person. 2 You do not try to use rocks against an angry person who has already discharged a firearm. The article made clear that instead of leaving the area, the party engaged in an argument with an angry old guy armed with a gun who had already discharged shots. The statements made it clear that instead of getting back on the raft or tubes or whatever, they chose not to. Now all that being said, the angry guy with the gun should never have discharged the damn thing in the first fucking place since he was not in danger of attack. Once he fired at unarmed people he committed a crime, and in every state I know of, it was a felony. Someone should have used a cell phone to dial 911. This turned into a poker game where one was holding a flush and the other was holding a pair of deuces. Or to put it another way, it was a pissing contest and someone had a fucking huge ass artificial dick to piss with. Now for the "no avenue of retreat" the statements made indicate the told the people to get off the property after he fired the shots. Even if it was before the shots were fired, the could have gotten back on the river and notified the authorities later. My personal opinion is that after being told to get off the property and not doing so makes a few people qualified for the darwin awards for arguing with an angry old man with a gun.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:38:48 PM)
quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. 1 You do not approach an angry person pointing a firearm he has already fired, you back away from him, minimizing your threat to his person. 2 You do not try to use rocks against an angry person who has already discharged a firearm. Except that the one who got shot was the one who stepped in between man with gun and man with rock, protecting both from the other.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:39:54 PM)
'Preponderance of the evidence' has nothing to do with the standard for guilt in criminal trials, and isn't used in the cherry picking manner you suggest, even when it is applicable. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My agreement on that case disproves your assumption of a kneejerk reaction to defend the guy with the gun. So you admit that if there is any question you want the guy with the gun to go away of be beaten to death. The juries have consistently agreed with me that makes me mainstream and you out in left field. The standard in most places to sustain a self defense claim is by the preponderance of the evidence. So if there is strong doubt then yes the person should go away. Juries and judges do not consistently agree with either of us. That is the problem with these SYG laws. Go back up thread and read that investigation bythe Tampa paper. And the only time I've said a guy with a gun could have been legally beaten to death was this case. He had committed assault with a deadly weapon and was clearly in danger of escalating further. The floaters had no avenue of retreat so they had the legal right to kill to keep him from killing them. Their failure to take that action is what got one of them killed.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Okay, guy with a rock versus guy with loaded gun. Guy with rock has to close distance, thus guy with gun hits him with numerous bullets eliminating guy with rock. Other people standing around doing nothing could have probably engaged guy with gun while he was shooting guy with rock. Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. 1 You do not approach an angry person pointing a firearm he has already fired, you back away from him, minimizing your threat to his person. 2 You do not try to use rocks against an angry person who has already discharged a firearm. The article made clear that instead of leaving the area, the party engaged in an argument with an angry old guy armed with a gun who had already discharged shots. The statements made it clear that instead of getting back on the raft or tubes or whatever, they chose not to. Now all that being said, the angry guy with the gun should never have discharged the damn thing in the first fucking place since he was not in danger of attack. Once he fired at unarmed people he committed a crime, and in every state I know of, it was a felony. Someone should have used a cell phone to dial 911. This turned into a poker game where one was holding a flush and the other was holding a pair of deuces. Or to put it another way, it was a pissing contest and someone had a fucking huge ass artificial dick to piss with. Now for the "no avenue of retreat" the statements made indicate the told the people to get off the property after he fired the shots. Even if it was before the shots were fired, the could have gotten back on the river and notified the authorities later. My personal opinion is that after being told to get off the property and not doing so makes a few people qualified for the darwin awards for arguing with an angry old man with a gun. There is no point where I disagree. You did leave out that fact that Crocker went back to his car before there was any display of a weapon, that was the time for him to call 911

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:45:12 PM)
Darwin is writ large in far too many of these cases.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. 1 You do not approach an angry person pointing a firearm he has already fired, you back away from him, minimizing your threat to his person. 2 You do not try to use rocks against an angry person who has already discharged a firearm. Except that the one who got shot was the one who stepped in between man with gun and man with rock, protecting both from the other. Even with the strictest evaluation of "moved to the arm" he moved toward Crocker Darwin award applies.

jlf1961 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:51:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. 1 You do not approach an angry person pointing a firearm he has already fired, you back away from him, minimizing your threat to his person. 2 You do not try to use rocks against an angry person who has already discharged a firearm. Except that the one who got shot was the one who stepped in between man with gun and man with rock, protecting both from the other. I think you missed a part of my post immediately above those two points. quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. Unless you are trained to negotiate with someone holding a gun, you do not approach the angry man with a gun who has already fired the damn thing. In fact, even if you are trained to negotiate with an armed individual, if he has already discharged the gun, stay the fuck away from him. There is a term for this type of armed individual "Dangerous." Doing anything other than what the angry guy with a gun told you to do, in this case get off his property, was in a word stupid. This has nothing to do with the fact I support gun ownership, it has to do with common sense. The guy that did the shooting is criminally liable, but the people that didn't leave the area and chose to stay and argue property rights and whatever else were not using common sense. Sorry, but unlike what you see in the movies or on tv, you do not debate anything with an armed individual unless it is how high do you want us to jump or are we getting off your property fast enough. I have a carry permit, and even when I am armed, I am not going to argue with a drawn gun. I dont know anyone that can draw and fire faster than a guy already pointing a gun at you can fire his. People pointing guns at people do not play by the same rules as unarmed folks. Their set of rules boils down to, I have the gun, so it is my rules we play by, in which, if I get pissed off enough, I can pull the fucking trigger.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:53:47 PM)
quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. Nope,,, didnt miss it.. I have no issue with it. I do see a man shooting already at unarmed people. One armed himself after the shots. Another stepped in between to prevent an escalation, and it got worse. There were two pissed off men... the third....the calm one.... died.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 5:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. Nope,,, didnt miss it.. I have no issue with it. I do see a man shooting already at unarmed people. One armed himself after the shots. Another stepped in between to prevent an escalation, and it got worse. There were two pissed off men... the third....the calm one.... died. There was no way that was going to calm things down.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 6:00:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My agreement on that case disproves your assumption of a kneejerk reaction to defend the guy with the gun. So you admit that if there is any question you want the guy with the gun to go away of be beaten to death. The juries have consistently agreed with me that makes me mainstream and you out in left field. The standard in most places to sustain a self defense claim is by the preponderance of the evidence. So if there is strong doubt then yes the person should go away. Juries and judges do not consistently agree with either of us. That is the problem with these SYG laws. Go back up thread and read that investigation bythe Tampa paper. And the only time I've said a guy with a gun could have been legally beaten to death was this case. He had committed assault with a deadly weapon and was clearly in danger of escalating further. The floaters had no avenue of retreat so they had the legal right to kill to keep him from killing them. Their failure to take that action is what got one of them killed. You mean merely subduing wouldn't have done? Are you bright enough to realize that subduing would have had to happen before they could have beaten him to death? Following your advice would have them all in jail for continuing after he was helpless but of course since they only killed a sub human gun owner you would want them freed. Taking a rock and smashing it into a man's head requires him to be subdued? What kind of fantasy world are you living in? You specifically said beaten him to death. Stand off and throw rocks and he will get shots off you just raised the body count except in your fantasy world. Try to close and you get just what happened when they try to close. No. It is quite clear they would have been within the law to do so. I never said it was smart or easy.

jlf1961 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 6:10:02 PM)
Tazzy, do you honestly think there could have been any other ending than what happened after the people did not take his warning to get off his land seriously and chose not to do so? Once the guy fired those shots, there was no way in hell he was going to back down, short of those people leaving the area.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 6:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. Nope,,, didnt miss it.. I have no issue with it. I do see a man shooting already at unarmed people. One armed himself after the shots. Another stepped in between to prevent an escalation, and it got worse. There were two pissed off men... the third....the calm one.... died. There was no way that was going to calm things down. And you would have just walked off leaving one with rocks in his hands and the other holding a gun?

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 6:11:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid. Nope,,, didnt miss it.. I have no issue with it. I do see a man shooting already at unarmed people. One armed himself after the shots. Another stepped in between to prevent an escalation, and it got worse. There were two pissed off men... the third....the calm one.... died. There was no way that was going to calm things down. And you would have just walked off leaving one with rocks in his hands and the other holding a gun? I would have had those people back on the boats before he came back with a gun.

jlf1961 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 6:14:53 PM)
Gee, logic. Leave the area before angry old guy can blow my brains out. Of course I would add, call the fucking police and report angry old guy making threats on the offhand chance someone else comes along.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 6:18:59 PM)
Look, we already know there was not a whole lot of logic on that river that day.... regardless of what side you come down on.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/29/2013 6:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Gee, logic. Leave the area before angry old guy can blow my brains out. Of course I would add, call the fucking police and report angry old guy making threats on the offhand chance someone else comes along. Sorry I thought that was a given but you are right makes to much sense for most people, better to try to beat him to death and see how high we can make the body count. I should have mentioned calling in my post.

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625