quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

I didn't watch the video, which meant that until you accused me of being a racist I didn't know the victim was black.

That's not why.

Well since I didn't know the victim was black nothing I said could have been because he was black, surely even you can follow that. Which means your claim of making a race based decision was BS. And since I never said it was his fault this means that you made a stupid assumption based on another stupid assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your inflated sense of self is just another sign. No one is better than anyone else.

What Aylee said.
If you don't have an inferiority complex you should.
Everyone is equal under the law.
You clearly consider yourself better than many others or you wouldn't be so free with terms like dumbass.

No. You have demonstrated that you are dumb. I can't help that. That doesn't mean I would ever treat you as less than any one else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

I didn't watch the video, which meant that until you accused me of being a racist I didn't know the victim was black.

That's not why.

Well since I didn't know the victim was black nothing I said could have been because he was black, surely even you can follow that. Which means your claim of making a race based decision was BS. And since I never said it was his fault this means that you made a stupid assumption based on another stupid assumption.

Sure...

This being the first time ever you don't support the guy with the gun also happens to be the time the guy is black is just a coincidence. You don't really think people are really all this dumb do you? You supported the idiot who went blazing away in the dark at the confused old man but it was "unwise" for a guy to hold a BB gun while chatting on his cell phone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

I didn't watch the video, which meant that until you accused me of being a racist I didn't know the victim was black.

That's not why.

Well since I didn't know the victim was black nothing I said could have been because he was black, surely even you can follow that. Which means your claim of making a race based decision was BS. And since I never said it was his fault this means that you made a stupid assumption based on another stupid assumption.

Sure...

This being the first time ever you don't support the guy with the gun also happens to be the time the guy is black is just a coincidence. You don't really think people are really all this dumb do you? You supported the idiot who went blazing away in the dark at the confused old man but it was "unwise" for a guy to hold a BB gun while chatting on his cell phone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I said he could have done things better. I never said it was his fault. I didn't know he was black so that never entered into it. It would not have been the first time by a long shot that I didn't support the guy with the gun, you just ignore all of the times I haven't. And why do you keep going back to a case where the cops, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wide agreed with me that it was a justifiable shooting. You had lost that one even before it became a thread. What does that do to your claim to support the courts.
Are you telling me that since it was legal it was wise to carry the pellet rifle like that with people like you who were liable to panic and call in false reports running around?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

You said they shot him before he had a chance to comply, I came back with actually they shot him before he had a chance to shoot the kid they thought he was aiming at.

Now both statements have the cops shooting the guy at the same time and the only real difference is the intent which neither one of us could say for sure without actually being there. You can watch that tape till you are blue in the face and that won't change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I said he could have done things better. I never said it was his fault. I didn't know he was black so that never entered into it. It would not have been the first time by a long shot that I didn't support the guy with the gun, you just ignore all of the times I haven't. And why do you keep going back to a case where the cops, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wide agreed with me that it was a justifiable shooting. You had lost that one even before it became a thread. What does that do to your claim to support the courts.
Are you telling me that since it was legal it was wise to carry the pellet rifle like that with people like you who were liable to panic and call in false reports running around?

Are you saying that just because it was legal it was wise to shoot at someone the shooter couldn't see and had never identified?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I said he could have done things better. I never said it was his fault. I didn't know he was black so that never entered into it. It would not have been the first time by a long shot that I didn't support the guy with the gun, you just ignore all of the times I haven't. And why do you keep going back to a case where the cops, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wide agreed with me that it was a justifiable shooting. You had lost that one even before it became a thread. What does that do to your claim to support the courts.
Are you telling me that since it was legal it was wise to carry the pellet rifle like that with people like you who were liable to panic and call in false reports running around?

Are you saying that just because it was legal it was wise to shoot at someone the shooter couldn't see and had never identified?

You keep going back to the case where everyone, including the dead mans wife said it was a just shooting.
Idiot that you are you think that since he didn't have floodlights on he couldn't see him.
How pray tell did he hit him if he couldn't see him?

God you must love looking stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I said he could have done things better. I never said it was his fault. I didn't know he was black so that never entered into it. It would not have been the first time by a long shot that I didn't support the guy with the gun, you just ignore all of the times I haven't. And why do you keep going back to a case where the cops, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wide agreed with me that it was a justifiable shooting. You had lost that one even before it became a thread. What does that do to your claim to support the courts.
Are you telling me that since it was legal it was wise to carry the pellet rifle like that with people like you who were liable to panic and call in false reports running around?

Are you saying that just because it was legal it was wise to shoot at someone the shooter couldn't see and had never identified?

You keep going back to the case where everyone, including the dead mans wife said it was a just shooting.
Idiot that you are you think that since he didn't have floodlights on he couldn't see him.
How pray tell did he hit him if he couldn't see him?

God you must love looking stupid.

No. I just love making you keep saying you approve of violating the first and most basic rule of shooting.

Just because the cops chose not to prosecute the guy doesn't change how to safely use a firearm. What is the first and most basic rule for safely shooting? You must know it right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I said he could have done things better. I never said it was his fault. I didn't know he was black so that never entered into it. It would not have been the first time by a long shot that I didn't support the guy with the gun, you just ignore all of the times I haven't. And why do you keep going back to a case where the cops, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wide agreed with me that it was a justifiable shooting. You had lost that one even before it became a thread. What does that do to your claim to support the courts.
Are you telling me that since it was legal it was wise to carry the pellet rifle like that with people like you who were liable to panic and call in false reports running around?

Are you saying that just because it was legal it was wise to shoot at someone the shooter couldn't see and had never identified?

You keep going back to the case where everyone, including the dead mans wife said it was a just shooting.
Idiot that you are you think that since he didn't have floodlights on he couldn't see him.
How pray tell did he hit him if he couldn't see him?

God you must love looking stupid.

No. I just love making you keep saying you approve of violating the first and most basic rule of shooting.

Just because the cops chose not to prosecute the guy doesn't change how to safely use a firearm. What is the first and most basic rule for safely shooting? You must know it right?

To bad I'm not doing that.
True there is little chance that he could have reproduced the guys face for a police artist.
You ignore a couple of facts.
A He could see him well enough to know he was carrying a metal cylinder. This destroys your argument that he couldn't see him.
B He warned the guy to stop not once, not twice, but three times. He could see him well enough to know that he was still advancing on him with the metal cylinder. This means that the situation you keep insisting on didn't exist no matter what you want to pretend.
And the first and most basic rule is the gun is always loaded.
There are in fact several rules that come into play before you get to combat shooting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I said he could have done things better. I never said it was his fault. I didn't know he was black so that never entered into it. It would not have been the first time by a long shot that I didn't support the guy with the gun, you just ignore all of the times I haven't. And why do you keep going back to a case where the cops, the prosecutor, and even the dead mans wide agreed with me that it was a justifiable shooting. You had lost that one even before it became a thread. What does that do to your claim to support the courts.
Are you telling me that since it was legal it was wise to carry the pellet rifle like that with people like you who were liable to panic and call in false reports running around?

Are you saying that just because it was legal it was wise to shoot at someone the shooter couldn't see and had never identified?

You keep going back to the case where everyone, including the dead mans wife said it was a just shooting.
Idiot that you are you think that since he didn't have floodlights on he couldn't see him.
How pray tell did he hit him if he couldn't see him?

God you must love looking stupid.

No. I just love making you keep saying you approve of violating the first and most basic rule of shooting.

Just because the cops chose not to prosecute the guy doesn't change how to safely use a firearm. What is the first and most basic rule for safely shooting? You must know it right?

To bad I'm not doing that.
True there is little chance that he could have reproduced the guys face for a police artist.
You ignore a couple of facts.
A He could see him well enough to know he was carrying a metal cylinder. This destroys your argument that he couldn't see him.
B He warned the guy to stop not once, not twice, but three times. He could see him well enough to know that he was still advancing on him with the metal cylinder. This means that the situation you keep insisting on didn't exist no matter what you want to pretend.
And the first and most basic rule is the gun is always loaded.
There are in fact several rules that come into play before you get to combat shooting.

The first and most basic rule of shooting is always clearly identify what you are shooting at. You know it that is why you got so defensive. And that is what this has always been about post after post of you making an utter fool out of yourself. I gave you every chance to realize what was happening and run away but you kept right on.

BTW treating all firearms as if they're loaded has nothing to do with shooting. That is simple firearm safety. That is different. For such a gun enthusiast I sort of expected you to at least know the basics. Alabama offers a course that all the kids have to pass before they can get their first deer license. You should take it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

You said they shot him before he had a chance to comply, I came back with actually they shot him before he had a chance to shoot the kid they thought he was aiming at.

Now both statements have the cops shooting the guy at the same time and the only real difference is the intent which neither one of us could say for sure without actually being there. You can watch that tape till you are blue in the face and that won't change.

Except for the little problem that there is no kid to be aimed at. Which is completely obvious if you watched the video. The mother and children had left the area well before the police arrived.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

You said they shot him before he had a chance to comply, I came back with actually they shot him before he had a chance to shoot the kid they thought he was aiming at.

Now both statements have the cops shooting the guy at the same time and the only real difference is the intent which neither one of us could say for sure without actually being there. You can watch that tape till you are blue in the face and that won't change.

Except for the little problem that there is no kid to be aimed at. Which is completely obvious if you watched the video. The mother and children had left the area well before the police arrived.

I never said there was a kid. I said the 911 caller had already said that the guy was pointing the gun at people including kids and the cops didn't have any way of knowing he was full of shit.

And for the record in response to your post above this one. No that is not what bama is saying. Perhaps you could get a friend to explain the big words for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I read somewhere that the officers are not going to be indited but I haven't seen anything about the guy who called them in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And he identified the person as a threat, as I said there are several safety rules that come into play before you even get to combat shooting.
You gave me several chances to accept your fanciful fiction of what happened but being able to see what actually happened kept me from doing so.
That was the thread where you lied about your brother trying to seriously injure you and later tried to weasel out by claiming you were just horsing around, meaning the point you claimed to be making in the first place was pure BS.
It clearly was not pitch black as you try to pretend or he could not have identified the metal cylinder or that he kept advancing in spite of warnings.
Had he just fired into the darkness without knowing what was there he would have been charged.
And you have insisted that, when they go your way, that courts cannot be questioned.
You are only using a long since settled case to distract from the fact that your ridiculous claims about this case were so totally refuted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You are the one claiming I never watched it so you tell us.

No you made a clear statement showing you had no idea what happened. so I'm asking you why you commented on this event without watching the video?

You said they shot him before he had a chance to comply, I came back with actually they shot him before he had a chance to shoot the kid they thought he was aiming at.

Now both statements have the cops shooting the guy at the same time and the only real difference is the intent which neither one of us could say for sure without actually being there. You can watch that tape till you are blue in the face and that won't change.

Except for the little problem that there is no kid to be aimed at. Which is completely obvious if you watched the video. The mother and children had left the area well before the police arrived.

I never said there was a kid. I said the 911 caller had already said that the guy was pointing the gun at people including kids and the cops didn't have any way of knowing he was full of shit.

And for the record in response to your post above this one. No that is not what bama is saying. Perhaps you could get a friend to explain the big words for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And he identified the person as a threat, as I said there are several safety rules that come into play before you even get to combat shooting.
You gave me several chances to accept your fanciful fiction of what happened but being able to see what actually happened kept me from doing so.
That was the thread where you lied about your brother trying to seriously injure you and later tried to weasel out by claiming you were just horsing around, meaning the point you claimed to be making in the first place was pure BS.
It clearly was not pitch black as you try to pretend or he could not have identified the metal cylinder or that he kept advancing in spite of warnings.
Had he just fired into the darkness without knowing what was there he would have been charged.
And you have insisted that, when they go your way, that courts cannot be questioned.
You are only using a long since settled case to distract from the fact that your ridiculous claims about this case were so totally refuted.

No. We're not talking about combat shooting. This is more basic.
The very first rule of shooting is to clearly identify the target. If he had done that he wouldn't have shot since he would have seen it was an old man who was confused.

I'm sorry you have no clue. And calling me a liar about events you didn't witness? That's hilarious. I have the scar to prove it.