Jump to content

What say you nutters? Clean shoot?


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Shooting somebody in your own yard is kosher in many states and i'd be very surprised if that's not also true in Texas.

That's a much safer assumption in your own house than in your yard, and not just because that's where the second amendment applies. For now.

Defining your "castle" in Texas.

Quote

Does the Castle Doctrine protect me in my detached shed or garage? The answer is no. For purposes of the Castle Doctrine, Texas law defines habitation as “a structure or vehicle adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons.” Because you do not stay the night in your shed, you will not get the legal protections of the Castle Doctrine if someone breaks into it.

TX has a Stand Your Ground law, something I generally oppose, but any rules applicable under that would not depend on being in or out of your yard.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The judge is Kyle's ex-wife (I think). She's not there. The lady on the right, texting and showing little or no concern about the gun wielding Kyle or the soon to be dead Chad, is Kyle's current squee

If there wasn't a gun, one or both would be nursing a few bruises on jaws and the kids would have a chance at growing up as normal kids.  

No screaming from any parties when teal guy gets killed? Nobody checks for a pulse? Not even a "Hey, come over heunh and clean up thisere dead body forn I call the cops on yall!" Something m

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

TX has a Stand Your Ground law, something I generally oppose

You are like the virgins: thanks for nothing.

More sketchy bullshit, per Dogballs. You did not repeat did not oppose "stand your ground" during the Zimmerman affair. :D

You had to think about it, you said. But in your many posts, you shared no reflections, or ruminations. After a year or so, you made an edict that you kinda had been (and suddenly are) constitutionally against it...based on ????.

Why was this (very key) discussion (with yourself) kept private, and why was your Libertarian reasoning, and the keen Dogballs decision-making, kept private? Even reason.com can lay out, then parse (and then butcher), such an argunemt or discussion.

I compliment your choice of position on SYG>  but it was volitional, based on mysterious reasoning, in a mind that does mental backflips, depending.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

you did not repeat did not oppose "stand your ground" during the Zimmerman affair. :D

You had to think about it, you said. But in your many posts, you shared no reflections, or ruminations. After a year or so, you made an edict that you kinda had been (and suddenly are) constitutionally against it...based on ????.

Wow, that's a wild fantasy.

Back in reality, I noted months after Zimmerman shot Martin that I had opposed the law when it was passed and continued to feel that way, as I do today. As I said in May of 2012, I did not support the law when it was passed.

You made up, repeat made up, more bullshit about me, but Scot's database goes back far enough to have a link proving your fantasies are wrong again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Wow, that's a wild fantasy.

Back in reality, I noted months after Zimmerman shot Martin that I had opposed the law when it was passed and continued to feel that way, as I do today. As I said in May of 2012, I did not support the law when it was passed.

You made up, repeat made up, more bullshit about me, but Scot's database goes back far enough to have a link proving your fantasies are wrong again.

At that time,  I repeatedly challenged you, sir. You would not engage in conversation about expanding castile doctrine, yes or no. YOU said you were undecided.

But this is my point.  Your quality, developing, smarty-pants, decision-making on SYG was kept secret...and remains secret. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

The dead guy was definitely too stupid to live.

Who TF has an eyeball to eyeball with someone who's holding an assault rifle?

Sloopers, relax. You want your discretion to substitute for his valor?

"The weapons effect" brings out different reactions in humans. Green shirt had had his big ego confronted. On film.

Secondly, you talkin' to me, Sloopers? IMO, only a weak, cheap little bitch would pull a gun. So there that.

Next, think "Don't back down," please. 

  • Spartacus, for one example, was not about playing the fuckin' odds. 
  • I wonder which dumbass lead the futile charge on the hijacked plane on 911.
  • Green shirt got close enough for mano a mano, his unarmed bit was planned, and contained.

 

 If I'm gonna die by a gun, or even be confronted with a gun,  I don't mind spiting the shooter. Seriously, fuck him. Sure, green shirt made a very unfortunate statement, and it became his undoing, and the fabric of nightmares, and of life lessons, for others.

Such an act of confrontation (of the weapon) is taken by some civil rights leaders as a deeper take on "turning the other cheek." Green shirt was close enough for violence, but employed none. He chose to challenge the raw force of others, and to let them make their weird decisions. 

If you pull a gun on me, I have no major plans to fold. RIP, to a bold, and valiant, DTS guy. And rue the day the guns entered that home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Link supplied for added comedy.

I wanted the SYG discussion added, for comedy. You did not participate in the pertinent, key, discussion, when it was ripe, and timely, and topical, and in the headlines.

CASTLE DOCTRINE VS. GUN MAYHEM ALERT

Why did you hide from airing out the basics in play? Dogballs, where is any link to your wisdom in (allegedly, supposedly) siding against SYG?

 

kitty handles dogballs.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, βhyde said:

To be fair, I think the videos show that Kyle got flung off the porch when Chad (He Who is of The Dead) grabbed the gun. However, Kyle was not being pursued by Chad. Chad just stands there when Kyle double taps him. 

At no point in the video does it look to me like Kyle is in fear for his life. In fact, he looks rather nonchalant about going in to the house a grabbing his gun. I think he would have a hard time claiming self-defense, but it's Texas, so...

I saw that.    Chad started to take the gun, then backed away.   Beginning that action required complete resolve.   Like pulling a gun in the first place, reaching for a man’s gun requires follow through until the threat is gone.    Fight with extreme violence of action until he had possession of the gun and Kyle was no longer a threat (dead or on the ground a distance away).    Otherwise Chad needed to surrender or run away after his sorry half assed attempt.   Reaching for the precious threatened the gun owner’s ego and made the killing even more likely.  Per Google,  Texas is a ‘stand your ground’ state, allowing premeditated killing of trespassers and would be gun thieves (Castle doctrine).    However shooting them in the back isn’t sporting. 
 

edit,   On this occasion Tom is correct.   I don’t think it’s right, but he is correct.   
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lark said:

I saw that.    Chad started to take the gun, then backed away.   Beginning that action required complete resolve.   Like pulling a gun in the first place, reaching for a man’s gun requires follow through until the threat is gone.    Fight with extreme violence of action until he had possession of the gun and Kyle was no longer a threat (dead or on the ground a distance away).    Otherwise Chad needed to surrender or run away after his sorry half assed attempt.   Reaching for the precious threatened the gun owner’s ego and made the killing even more likely.  Per Google,  Texas is a ‘stand your ground’ state, allowing premeditated killing of trespassers and would be gun thieves (Castle doctrine).    However shooting them in the back isn’t sporting. 
 

edit,   On this occasion Tom is correct.   I don’t think it’s right, but he is correct.

One problem is that teal guy said "you better use it on me, or I am going to take it away and use it on you."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

One problem is that teal guy said "you better use it on me, or I am going to take it away and use it on you."

Very foolish tactics and also telegraphing his intention.   Cowboys don’t wear teal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

buncha posturing, over a weapon. stupid shit.

He would have had major bad ass points if he had disarmed and disabled Kyle, then called the police and enforced his custody rights.   Little tyke doesn’t think his dad is so tough  now.   Fortunately stepdad will teach him how to shoot, so he’ll turn out all right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

Well after you typed gang and self defense into the google, you’re now supposed to start a thread about one of the cases with some opinion about it.  Point to video evidence if possible.  Joker may have been obsessive but at least his thread had a subject and hypothesis.  “Black people do it too” (using questionable nomenclature) is not really a starting point.

or just keep going all day.

just ‘sayin.

It has nothing to do with "But the negros do it too".  It has to do with your obsession over the occasional/rare instance where stoopid white people "claim" self defense when they have no right to do so.  Meanwhile you ignore the hundreds and thousands of black on black killin's almost every day by individuals and groups that would definitely claim self-defense.  Why do you think so many black urban kids arm themselves?  It's so they can "defend" themselves from the gang that is trying to force him to become a member "or else".  Or "defend" against the rival gang in case they roll up on them with uzi's pointed out the windows.  With all the people getting shot at in the hoods, there are "victims" who are shooting back in Self-defense.  

By focusing on the few white on white trash people who claim SD when it's inappropriate as a standard PA "gotcha" attempt - you and the usual suspects here absolutely virtue signal that Black Lives Do Not Matter and they mean nothing to you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d&#x27;ranger said:

Moral: Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash.  There are no winners, the shooter will likely walk but his life will never be the same.

At least no fist fighting - an armed society is a polite society.

I'm not disagreeing....... What's your solution then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

I'm not disagreeing....... What's your solution then?

Step 1 - from your previous post how about something more than comparing the thousands of black shootings to the few white stoopid people? Seriously. 

Step 2 - there is none. horse is out of the barn, the proliferation of guns makes it impossible to deal with and people are still buying them as fast as they can.  People are afraid and having a gun gives courage - Rittenhouse would have never gone to Kenosha without trying to be Rambo.  My guns are put up for that reason. 

Step 3 - just prepare for more of the same, we're fucked. Be polite while driving, just smile and wave at the assholes that cut you off and walk away from arguments.  I see it as similar to Covid - gotta run thru all the stupid before anything changes.  Gonna be awhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, d&#x27;ranger said:

Step 1 - from your previous post how about something more than comparing the thousands of black shootings to the few white stoopid people? Seriously. 

Step 2 - there is none. horse is out of the barn, the proliferation of guns makes it impossible to deal with and people are still buying them as fast as they can.  People are afraid and having a gun gives courage - Rittenhouse would have never gone to Kenosha without trying to be Rambo.  My guns are put up for that reason. 

Step 3 - just prepare for more of the same, we're fucked. Be polite while driving, just smile and wave at the assholes that cut you off and walk away from arguments.  I see it as similar to Covid - gotta run thru all the stupid before anything changes.  Gonna be awhile.

I’m ok with much tougher laws that would have the Zimmerman’s, Kyle’s and Chad’s held accountable for using their guns when it was their actions that started all the shit. Kinda like how black guys in the hood go to jail, ya know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty evident that most societies aren't emotionally mature to handle lethal weapons in the house. 

This tiresome bullshit about self defence implies some childish idyllic fantasy about the cowboy in a white hat standing up to the nasty cowboy in the black hat and protecting his girl/family/town. 

In reality, it's self-entitled fuckwits incapable of controlling their emotions and as soon as the red mist descends a gun gets pulled they dont have the emotional maturity to handle. With the inevitable consequences.

Pretending otherwise is kinda juvenile.  John Wayne has a lot to answer for it seems.

 

 

 

  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, d&#x27;ranger said:

Step 1 - from your previous post how about something more than comparing the thousands of black shootings to the few white stoopid people? Seriously. 

Step 2 - there is none. horse is out of the barn, the proliferation of guns makes it impossible to deal with and people are still buying them as fast as they can.  People are afraid and having a gun gives courage - Rittenhouse would have never gone to Kenosha without trying to be Rambo.  My guns are put up for that reason. 

Step 3 - just prepare for more of the same, we're fucked. Be polite while driving, just smile and wave at the assholes that cut you off and walk away from arguments.  I see it as similar to Covid - gotta run thru all the stupid before anything changes.  Gonna be awhile.

I think your step 3 is the key.  Attempting to take all the gunz away, until @jocal505 finally builds his big space magnet that will suck up all the guns from the planet, is a dead end.  But you hit on the actual root cause probably while not even recognizing it.  Our society is broken in a lot of areas of the country.  Too many of us hate our fellow man/woman/tranny, whatever.... and many would rather just kill them instead of either just walking away, calling the cops, or minding their own fucking Bidness.  We have become an incredibly impolite society and guns are not the reason.  The reasons are for another thread, but the truth is that we just don't really play well and get along with others like we used to in the past.  Or when we didn't like someone, we grinned and bore it and walked away shaking our heads.  Now it's all about the confrontation.  

Had the people who saw rittenhouse with a slung rifle just left him the fuck alone, there also wouldn't be 2 dead people and two other lives ruined forever.  If they felt scared by the rifle, GTFO of there.  If they were worried that he might become a mass shooter - then retreat to a safe distance, shadow him, video him, and call the Po-LEECE.  The folks who chased him instigated that gun battle.  Same with AA....  if those 3 yokels were worried that he was a thief, then call the cops and follow him from a safe distance until they arrived.  If the woman who hit a motorcyclist was worried for her life and he followed her - stay the fuck inside and call the cops.  If the motorcyclist wanted her to not get away - follow her to her house, call the cops and wait out in the street until they arrive.  If chad wanted his kids, then walk back to the car and call the cops and CPS and remove yourself from the confrontation with an armed asshole.  Zero of these people would be dead if they had just followed some common sense.  But if sense was actually "common", we wouldn't need a separate word for it - it would just be called sense.  Start teaching Chil-ren to be polite, to learn the art of walking away and that that doesn't make them a pussy if they do.  

The key here to solving this is on parents, educators, and the rest of society.  There's obviously a LOT more to it than that, but it's got to start somewhere.  We got to start understanding a basic set of societal rules of politeness, understanding and responsibilities as a citizen.  Until we stop focusing on tools and start focusing on BEHAVIOR, then we will continue to spin our wheels and get nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

I think your step 3 is the key.  Attempting to take all the gunz away, until @jocal505 finally builds his big space magnet that will suck up all the guns from the planet, is a dead end.  But you hit on the actual root cause probably while not even recognizing it.  Our society is broken in a lot of areas of the country.  Too many of us hate our fellow man/woman/tranny, whatever.... and many would rather just kill them instead of either just walking away, calling the cops, or minding their own fucking Bidness.  We have become an incredibly impolite society and guns are not the reason.  The reasons are for another thread, but the truth is that we just don't really play well and get along with others like we used to in the past.  Or when we didn't like someone, we grinned and bore it and walked away shaking our heads.  Now it's all about the confrontation.  

Had the people who saw rittenhouse with a slung rifle just left him the fuck alone, there also wouldn't be 2 dead people and two other lives ruined forever.  If they felt scared by the rifle, GTFO of there.  If they were worried that he might become a mass shooter - then retreat to a safe distance, shadow him, video him, and call the Po-LEECE.  The folks who chased him instigated that gun battle.  Same with AA....  if those 3 yokels were worried that he was a thief, then call the cops and follow him from a safe distance until they arrived.  If the woman who hit a motorcyclist was worried for her life and he followed her - stay the fuck inside and call the cops.  If the motorcyclist wanted her to not get away - follow her to her house, call the cops and wait out in the street until they arrive.  If chad wanted his kids, then walk back to the car and call the cops and CPS and remove yourself from the confrontation with an armed asshole.  Zero of these people would be dead if they had just followed some common sense.  But if sense was actually "common", we wouldn't need a separate word for it - it would just be called sense.  Start teaching Chil-ren to be polite, to learn the art of walking away and that that doesn't make them a pussy if they do.  

The key here to solving this is on parents, educators, and the rest of society.  There's obviously a LOT more to it than that, but it's got to start somewhere.  We got to start understanding a basic set of societal rules of politeness, understanding and responsibilities as a citizen.  Until we stop focusing on tools and start focusing on BEHAVIOR, then we will continue to spin our wheels and get nowhere.

The behavior of carrying a long rifle into a riot is aggressive and signals “danger” by design - other than that, sure.

(hanging in the lot with his incel buddies and he’s just another wanna be. Now he’s the MAN)

Link to post
Share on other sites

An argument over custody as a result of a divorce. The guy with the gun was apparently having an affair with his wife. The gal in the truck is apparently with the victim, but feels it is more important to argue over what just happened with no expressed regard for the victim.   It's like a tossed dysfunctional relationship salad.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benwynn said:

An argument over custody as a result of a divorce. The guy with the gun was apparently having an affair with his wife. The gal in the truck is apparently with the victim, but feels it is more important to argue over what just happened with no expressed regard for the victim.   It's like a tossed dysfunctional relationship salad.  

That’s a lot to read into.  If there was a decree saying the dad gets the kid at a specific time, this is well past the affair stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No screaming from any parties when teal guy gets killed? Nobody checks for a pulse?

Not even a "Hey, come over heunh and clean up thisere dead body forn I call the cops on yall!"

Something mighty cavalier about witnessing a sudden death in the front yard here.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Its pretty evident that most societies aren't emotionally mature to handle lethal weapons in the house. 

This tiresome bullshit about self defence implies some childish idyllic fantasy about the cowboy in a white hat standing up to the nasty cowboy in the black hat and protecting his girl/family/town. 

In reality, it's self-entitled fuckwits incapable of controlling their emotions and as soon as the red mist descends a gun gets pulled they dont have the emotional maturity to handle. With the inevitable consequences.

Pretending otherwise is kinda juvenile.  John Wayne has a lot to answer for it seems.

Sorry, that's Bullshit!  The number of households with guns has steadily declined over the last 40+ years.  And

 

image.png.2bb153bf3566e5b5d5551407e3ffbb34.png

Meanwhile gun #s per person have steadily increased while the gun homicide rates have dropped. 

image.png.d9872837b93560051bd8f4085b6d3928.png

 

So no, more guns and more households with guns do not equate to more gun murders.  Back in the 50s, 60s and 70' - guns were ubiquitous in households.  Yet we didn't have teens taking dad's gun to school and murdering his classmates. 

So what's different now???  That's a subject for another thread but stuff like social media, more violent TV/movie/gaming, a fracturing of the nuclear family, a more nomadic society, the evisceration of our mental health care system, etc etc are all far more causal factors than the numbers of guns in homes.  As evadent by the decline of households with guns and the overall number of gun owners in general.  

You are entitled to your own opinions..... but not your own facts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Willin&#x27; said:

No screaming from any parties when teal guy gets killed? Nobody checks for a pulse?

Not even a "Hey, come over heunh and clean up thisere dead body forn I call the cops on yall!"

Something mighty cavalier about witnessing a sudden death in the front yard here.

Not sure I'd approach teal shirt down until Kyle put down his long gun. First rule in EMS is to secure the scene, and that scene was a live wire.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Willin&#x27; said:

No screaming from any parties when teal guy gets killed? Nobody checks for a pulse?

Not even a "Hey, come over heunh and clean up thisere dead body forn I call the cops on yall!"

Something mighty cavalier about witnessing a sudden death in the front yard here.

Chad was not well loved. 

His ex-wife didn't seem too upset about the whole affair. Busy texting while Chad was dying. Probably getting some GrubHub.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Sorry, that's Bullshit!  The number of households with guns has steadily declined over the last 40+ years.  And

 

image.png.2bb153bf3566e5b5d5551407e3ffbb34.png

Meanwhile gun #s per person have steadily increased while the gun homicide rates have dropped. 

image.png.d9872837b93560051bd8f4085b6d3928.png

 

So no, more guns and more households with guns do not equate to more gun murders.  Back in the 50s, 60s and 70' - guns were ubiquitous in households.  Yet we didn't have teens taking dad's gun to school and murdering his classmates. 

So what's different now???  That's a subject for another thread but stuff like social media, more violent TV/movie/gaming, a fracturing of the nuclear family, a more nomadic society, the evisceration of our mental health care system, etc etc are all far more causal factors than the numbers of guns in homes.  As evadent by the decline of households with guns and the overall number of gun owners in general.  

You are entitled to your own opinions..... but not your own facts.

Wtf are you on about Jeff? You just reiterated my point you numpty, as a society you don't have the emotional maturity to be trusted with handling weapons.

You need you ears cleaning. Fucking own facts my arse. 

Incapable of listening and jumping to supposition all because you have this enormous chip on your shoulder. What a shame.

   

  

  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Wtf are you on about Jeff? You just reiterated my point you numpty, as a society you don't have the emotional maturity to be trusted with handling weapons.

You need you ears cleaning. Fucking own facts my arse. 

Incapable of listening and jumping to supposition all because you have this enormous chip on your shoulder. What a shame.

 

I understood your point perfectly and don't completely disagree.  No chips here.  But as someone said here, that horse has already bolted from the train station.  Gunz are here to stay.  My entire point was to work on making society more mature so we don't have these issues as much.  We didn't have these same issues several decades back when guns were plentiful and restrictions on ownership were much much less than they are now.  It's far harder to legally purchase a gun today than it was back in the 70s and 80s much less the 50 n 60s.  If we had the maturity to do this back then, then I refuse to believe that we can't do it now.  It just takes the will and courage to actually 1) see the problem and 2) tackle the problem and not make inanimate objects the surrogate for our human behavioral problems.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

I understood your point perfectly and don't completely disagree.  No chips here.  But as someone said here, that horse has already bolted from the train station.  Gunz are here to stay.  My entire point was to work on making society more mature so we don't have these issues as much.  We didn't have these same issues several decades back when guns were plentiful and restrictions on ownership were much much less than they are now.  It's far harder to legally purchase a gun today than it was back in the 70s and 80s much less the 50 n 60s.  If we had the maturity to do this back then, then I refuse to believe that we can't do it now.  It just takes the will and courage to actually 1) see the problem and 2) tackle the problem and not make inanimate objects the surrogate for our human behavioral problems.  

Agree with all , except the oversized chip on the shoulder when it comes to guns. The sheer mention of the word causes you to lose cognitive reading ability and just spit out your usual mantra even though it has fuck all to do with the point being made.  

You do it all the time. Its like watching a bull and a red cape sport. 

Just saying. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Sorry, that's Bullshit!  The number of households with guns has steadily declined over the last 40+ years.  And

 

image.png.2bb153bf3566e5b5d5551407e3ffbb34.png

Meanwhile gun #s per person have steadily increased while the gun homicide rates have dropped. 

image.png.d9872837b93560051bd8f4085b6d3928.png

 

So no, more guns and more households with guns do not equate to more gun murders.  Back in the 50s, 60s and 70' - guns were ubiquitous in households.  Yet we didn't have teens taking dad's gun to school and murdering his classmates. 

So what's different now???  That's a subject for another thread but stuff like social media, more violent TV/movie/gaming, a fracturing of the nuclear family, a more nomadic society, the evisceration of our mental health care system, etc etc are all far more causal factors than the numbers of guns in homes.  As evadent by the decline of households with guns and the overall number of gun owners in general.  

You are entitled to your own opinions..... but not your own facts.

Number of households with guns has dropped.    Number of guns per household has risen.   Therefore total guns owned has risen.   Percentage of people carrying a gun daily has also risen.   Female ownership has risen, as well as number of pussies with guns.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms
 

A9AD0CC1-DE5B-4EE5-A0AC-149BE490A60C.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I understood your point perfectly and don't completely disagree.  No chips here.  But as someone said here, that horse has already bolted from the train station.  Gunz are here to stay.  My entire point was to work on making society more mature so we don't have these issues as much.  We didn't have these same issues several decades back when guns were plentiful and restrictions on ownership were much much less than they are now.  It's far harder to legally purchase a gun today than it was back in the 70s and 80s much less the 50 n 60s.  If we had the maturity to do this back then, then I refuse to believe that we can't do it now.  It just takes the will and courage to actually 1) see the problem and 2) tackle the problem and not make inanimate objects the surrogate for our human behavioral problems.  

We had the issues, just didn’t have the Internet. Girl I dated a couple times had a brother and buddies do time when, as juniors, killed an old couple while burglaring their house. With his dads .06

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Agree with all , except the oversized chip on the shoulder when it comes to guns. The sheer mention of the word causes you to lose cognitive reading ability and just spit out your usual mantra even though it has fuck all to do with the point being made.  

You do it all the time. Its like watching a bull and a red cape sport. 

Just saying. 

 

You agree with my ALL of my point while in the same breath saying I have no cognitive ability to read or write something rational when it comes to the gunz topic.  Uhhh ok.  

The irony here is so....... ironic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shaggybaxter said:

Its pretty evident that most societies aren't emotionally mature to handle lethal weapons in the house. 

This tiresome bullshit about self defence implies some childish idyllic fantasy about the cowboy in a white hat standing up to the nasty cowboy in the black hat and protecting his girl/family/town. 

In reality, it's self-entitled fuckwits incapable of controlling their emotions and as soon as the red mist descends a gun gets pulled they dont have the emotional maturity to handle. With the inevitable consequences.

Pretending otherwise is kinda juvenile.  John Wayne has a lot to answer for it seems.

 

 

 

  

We need jimmy Stewart or Alan Ladd, the reluctant hero.   John Wayne did glamorize violence, but Clint Eastwood’s movies eliminated the ‘cowboy code’.   Prior westerns and Samurai movies were similar, morality plays around a code of conduct. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

You agree with my ALL of my point while in the same breath saying I have no cognitive ability to read or write something rational when it comes to the gunz topic.  Uhhh ok.  

The irony here is so....... ironic.  

Nothing ironic about it at all. You make a lot of sense most times, until someone hints at guns=part of the problem. Then you just shut down and revert to a brainwashed clown mindlessly repeating your mantra. Thats absolutely displaying a lack of cognitive ability.

You should try hypnosis, maybe its some repressed bullshit but its obvious as fuck you are hyper sensitive about it and shoot your mouth off before you stop and think.  

 

   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lark said:

Clint Eastwood’s movies eliminated the ‘cowboy code’.   Prior westerns and Samurai movies were similar, morality plays around a code of conduct. 

Huh?

Dirty Harry had a code - scumbags were fair game.

"Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot".

If that could magically be translated into reality, I'd have no problems with it. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

he does not do well with issues surrounding race either. 

He says he is working on it. 

Hey!

That's not fair - he has plainly stated that he has no problem with "The Blacks".

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Nothing ironic about it at all. You make a lot of sense most times, until someone hints at guns=part of the problem. Then you just shut down and revert to a brainwashed clown mindlessly repeating your mantra. Thats absolutely displaying a lack of cognitive ability.

You should try hypnosis, maybe its some repressed bullshit but its obvious as fuck you are hyper sensitive about it and shoot your mouth off before you stop and think.  

So let me get this straight....... you AGREE with my thesis that society is immature and that we need to tackle the root causes of the behavioral problems that manifest itself in this sort of senseless violence - while at the same time calling it a "brainwashed clown mindless mantra"?   

Ummm...... uh...... ermmm..... I think you may want to go back and rethink this.  Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Huh?

Dirty Harry had a code - scumbags were fair game.

"Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot".

If that could magically be translated into reality, I'd have no problems with it. :D

In most cases it’s the writer and director who deserves the blame I suppose.   Dirty Harry or Sylvester Stallone as non Miranda cops shooting without negotiation were fun because they never shot a citizen trying to intervene or just get away, even if he’s black.   I was thinking of High Planes Drifter, the man with no name trilogy, less so Josey Wales or Two Mules where he’s the antihero, scraping buy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So let me get this straight....... you AGREE with my thesis that society is immature and that we need to tackle the root causes of the behavioral problems that manifest itself in this sort of senseless violence - while at the same time calling it a "brainwashed clown mindless mantra"?   

Ummm...... uh...... ermmm..... I think you may want to go back and rethink this.  Just saying.

you AGREE with my thesis that society is immature and that we need to tackle the root causes of the behavioral problems that manifest itself in this sort of senseless violence

Yep.

while at the same time calling it a "brainwashed clown mindless mantra"?   

No. The brainwashed clown persona part....

You are entitled to your own opinions..... but not your own facts.

I didn't state any facts you muppet. My reference to 'in the house' is a reference to guns in society which even a twelve  year old could work out. The fact that I have to point that out to you is proof of your emotive reaction rather than one gleaned from intelligence.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lark said:

In most cases it’s the writer and director who deserves the blame I suppose.   Dirty Harry or Sylvester Stallone as non Miranda cops shooting without negotiation were fun because they never shot a citizen trying to intervene or just get away, even if he’s black.   I was thinking of High Planes Drifter, the man with no name trilogy, less so Josey Wales or Two Mules where he’s the antihero, scraping buy.

Nah, in the end - JW was absolutely the hero - despite his best efforts.  He was very pro-woman and pro-native 'Murican.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Nah, in the end - JW was absolutely the hero - despite his best efforts.  He was very pro-woman and pro-native 'Murican.

Conceded.   He grew on me.   John Wayne in True Grit also makes an interestingly flawed hero.    Neither owned 40 guns though,   Neither would have taken a gun to a fist fight, let alone a verbal dispute.    So when did pussies with many guns become such a thing?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Does Sheniqua call the Po-LEECE when Dontrell and Jamal face off in the front yard with guns over a social media dispute?  

Generally not, because when police arrive at a scene and see black people with guns everybody is liable to get shot. 

However the incident of the OP shows why police are sent to domestic disputes and not social workers.  People get as worked up and batshit crazy in those as anything around. Those who think there's no reason to send police to the scene haven't handled much of that shit. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bstrdsonofbtl said:

Wait, what? Ok I watched that last night, not gonna' do it again once is enough - K shot C in the back?

No,   C either needed to disarm and subdue K, or do the ‘coward thing’ in front of his kid, to survive.   Either run away or at least walk, turning his back, making it hard to legally justify killing him.   Otherwise stand your ground laws makes it pretty easy to legally kill an unarmed person on your property from any range.   It was within the spirit and letter of the law  after C was caught on camera grabbing K’s ‘tool’.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

He would have had major bad ass points if he had disarmed and disabled Kyle, then called the police and enforced his custody rights.   Little tyke doesn’t think his dad is so tough  now.   Fortunately stepdad will teach him how to shoot, so he’ll turn out all right.

Pretty good odds someone else will be playing step-dad. Mommy's boyfriend is probably going away for awhile. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark K said:

Pretty good odds someone else will be playing step-dad. Mommy's boyfriend is probably going away for awhile. 

Has he been charged?   What with?   I believe the killing to be wrong.   I also believe it to be within the guidelines of the so called castle doctrine, and stand your ground.    I’m interested in a legal reason it isn’t.   Self defense is no longer required in Texas if Google is correct.    Premeditation doesn’t make it a crime.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lark said:

So when did pussies with many guns become such a thing?   

It was sometime in the 90s. Wayne showed up as EVP in 1991. The NRA then started going full on fear mongering and anti-govmint to the point that NRA Life Member H mailed in his membership card.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html

The fear drives the need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lark said:

Has he been charged?   What with?   I believe the killing to be wrong.   I also believe it to be within the guidelines of the so called castle doctrine, and stand your ground.    I’m interested in a legal reason it isn’t.   Self defense is no longer required in Texas if Google is correct.    Premeditation doesn’t make it a crime.  

Premeditation only applies to murder one, which isn't the charge the DA will file against him. 

 I believe the DA will file charges. Kyle didn't kill some black guy trying to thug him, he drew heat on a white dad there to pick up his kid who had made no physical threats prior to having the gun displayed, and displayed as a threat.   

 I predict Mommy will find a new boyfriend, as raising a kid with a step dad that killed his real daddy is a wee bit awkward. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Premeditation only applies to murder one, which isn't the charge the DA will file against him. 

 I believe the DA will file charges. Kyle didn't kill some black guy trying to thug him, he drew heat on a white dad there to pick up his kid who had made no physical threats prior to having the gun displayed, and displayed as a threat.    

Yes.   Killing a dad, especially if he legally had custody, had bad optics.   Was it illegal by the law?   I’m not a lawyer, and am admittedly trying to apply common meaning to the words.     https://www.kut.org/crime-justice/2018-07-06/4-things-you-should-know-about-self-defense-law-in-texas

But in 1995, Texas law loosened, adding a “castle doctrine," which said that an individual didn’t need to run away if he or she was defending his or her own home or property. This law expanded in 2007, when the Texas Legislature changed the measure to say that individuals didn’t need to retreat at all, instead needing only to prove they had a legal right to be present during the act of defense. This policy is commonly referred to as a “Stand Your Ground” law.



https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#D

Sec. 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; 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.

section 3 b may allow charges?  Or would a risk of a broken nose count?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

It seems Amerika is at a point where calling the police is maybe the 2nd option now.  I guess we all agree they are incapable to protect and serve.  For our own reasons of course.

I’ve called the cops on several trespassers on my property that wouldn't leave when asked, a private parking area that is posted with No Trespassing, No Smoking, and No Loitering signs.   They like to sit and smoke.  The LAPD RARELY responds, even when the trespassers have threatened me with violence and I have related this to the dispatchers!  Serval times, they have responded over an hour later, so that they have given the trespassers time to finish up and move along.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lark said:

Yes.   Killing a dad, especially if he legally had custody, had bad optics.   Was it illegal by the law?   I’m not a lawyer, and am admittedly trying to apply common meaning to the words.     https://www.kut.org/crime-justice/2018-07-06/4-things-you-should-know-about-self-defense-law-in-texas

But in 1995, Texas law loosened, adding a “castle doctrine," which said that an individual didn’t need to run away if he or she was defending his or her own home or property. This law expanded in 2007, when the Texas Legislature changed the measure to say that individuals didn’t need to retreat at all, instead needing only to prove they had a legal right to be present during the act of defense. This policy is commonly referred to as a “Stand Your Ground” law.



https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#D

Sec. 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; 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.

section 3 b may allow charges?  Or would a risk of a broken nose count?   

And what land or property was his girlfriend's baby-daddy, there to pick up his kid, threatening? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

And what land or property was his girlfriend's baby-daddy, there to pick up his kid, threatening? 

 

Even in Texas, "he hurt my widdle feelings" might not be a good defense, but give it time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, silent bob said:

I’ve called the cops on several trespassers on my property that wouldn't leave when asked, a private parking area that is posted with No Trespassing, No Smoking, and No Loitering signs.   They like to sit and smoke.  The LAPD RARELY responds, even when the trespassers have threatened me with violence and I have related this to the dispatchers!  Serval times, they have responded over an hour later, so that they have given the trespassers time to finish up and move along.  

That sucks.  We're getting back to the old west.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, silent bob said:

I’ve called the cops on several trespassers on my property that wouldn't leave when asked, a private parking area that is posted with No Trespassing, No Smoking, and No Loitering signs.   They like to sit and smoke.  The LAPD RARELY responds, even when the trespassers have threatened me with violence and I have related this to the dispatchers!  Serval times, they have responded over an hour later, so that they have given the trespassers time to finish up and move along.  

Buy an AR15. I see no other option for you. Spend a lot of time oiling and caressing it, dreaming of the day you will have an excuse to kill someone with it.  If you had a car next to the area and the ability to trigger and shut off the alarm remotely though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark K said:

And what land or property was his girlfriend's baby-daddy, there to pick up his kid, threatening? 

 

He grabbed the man’s gun when it was waved in his face.   Not only was attempting to take his ‘tool’ a crime and assult, it was also a slap on gun owner’s ego, attempting to strip him naked of his superior status as rifle holder.    It escalated the event and also was attempted robbery (since it failed).   If he hadn’t done this the shooting might have been illegal IMO, though a reasonable person might conclude dead guy’s life was in danger.   If he had succeeded and broken Kyle’s arm or face in the process he could have made a reasonable argument it was self defense.   Since he failed, Kyle got to stand his ground in the face of assault.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

He grabbed the man’s gun when it was waved in his face.   Not only was attempting to take his ‘tool’ a crime and assult, it was also a slap on gun owner’s ego, attempting to strip him naked of his superior status as rifle holder.    It escalated the event and also was attempted robbery (since it failed).   If he hadn’t done this the shooting might have been illegal IMO, though a reasonable person might conclude dead guy’s life was in danger.   If he had succeeded and broken Kyle’s arm or face in the process he could have made a reasonable argument it was self defense.   Since he failed, Kyle got to stand his ground in the face of assault.  

Let's see how this shakes out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, silent bob said:

I’ve called the cops on several trespassers on my property that wouldn't leave when asked, a private parking area that is posted with No Trespassing, No Smoking, and No Loitering signs.   They like to sit and smoke.  The LAPD RARELY responds, even when the trespassers have threatened me with violence and I have related this to the dispatchers!  

My grandfather had a couple armed men, ‘cowboys’ he called them, walk into his pharmacy several decades ago.   He called the police, who reminded him open carry was legal and to call back when a crime was committed.    He had an employee get his gun, and hid it under a towel next to him.   The cowboys eventually wandered to the drug counter in the back.   Once they pulled their guns there was no time for my grandfather to get his gun from under the towel.   He called the police back a few minutes later and asked if they would come now and take the robbery report on the crime they couldn’t legally prevent.   His gun was useless, right next to him the entire time.  At least he didn’t get shot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Let's see how this shakes out. 

As a lawyer once advised me, in the absence of a clear precedent the side with the most lawyer money will likely win.   If the prosecutor cares enough to file charges, will the NRA or pro gun politicians support Kyle?   Since a father seeking his son was killed Kyle will be less popular then the fat kid.   It will be interesting to watch, Maybe C was a jerk, or liberal, or something that counteracts his being a white dad.   He certainly wasn’t mourned by the females present.   They cared about whose man was right, not who’s man was alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

And what land or property was his girlfriend's baby-daddy, there to pick up his kid, threatening? 

 

He tried to take away the gun. Now, if he quick-drawn maybe he’d be alive and we’d be scratching our heads trying to figure if Chad could shoot Kyle once Kyle aimed at Chad. Hudafuc can tell?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

He tried to take away the gun. Now, if he quick-drawn maybe he’d be alive and we’d be scratching our heads trying to figure if Chad could shoot Kyle once Kyle aimed at Chad. Hudafuc can tell?

The law is clear there.   If Chad pulled his own weapon or got control of Kyle’s weapon and shot Kyle immediately, before Kyle could react, it would have been legal.   Kyle had demonstrated a willingness to kill.   Chad could have reasonably feared Kyle had another weapon or might have continued to threaten Chad’s life.   If Chad had pointed the rifle at a Kyle and Kyle tried to get the gun back again, it would have been legal.   If they were both struggling and Kyle got shot, it would have been legal.   If Chad hesitated for any reason, then shot, it would have been premeditated murder.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2021 at 5:25 PM, Fakenews said:

He had to do it.  They wouldn’t leave and being a gun owner he was afraid for his life

Why are gun owners afraid for their lives against unarmed person, watching the video the shooter was 10-15 feet away from the victim,  so how was he afraid from is life, 

another coward gun owner becomes a killer.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot's of assuming what the pertinent laws are but no one, myself included, that I know of here has taken the time to study them.

I do not see pre-meditation, I do see the shooter unnecessarily escalating the already heated situation by producing the weapon. Shootee grabbed the weapon which is a threat but quickly released it. Poof, threat gone. It quickly augured in after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

Why are gun owners afraid for their lives against unarmed person, watching the video the shooter was 10-15 feet away from the victim,  so how was he afraid from is life, 

another coward gun owner becomes a killer.

That's what I see too.  The gun guy wasn't against a wall, with no escape.  He could have taken 5 steps back, while still holding his precious for blessed cover, and done the "one step towards me and I shoot" thing.  IMHO he would have had a better excuse at the time of the "grabbing-on-the-porch" to shoot.

Another instance of a gun in the household making things worse, not better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, βhyde said:

Seems like a lot of people get killed by well regulated militias members trying to protect us from a tyrannical government. I guess that's just the price of freedom.

Have you considered who is in charge of regulating the militias?   Article I, section 8:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I think your step 3 is the key.  Attempting to take all the gunz away, until @jocal505 finally builds his big space magnet that will suck up all the guns from the planet, is a dead end.  But you hit on the actual root cause probably while not even recognizing it.  Our society is broken in a lot of areas of the country.  Too many of us hate our fellow man/woman/tranny, whatever.... and many would rather just kill them instead of either just walking away, calling the cops, or minding their own fucking Bidness.  We have become an incredibly impolite society and guns are not the reason.  The reasons are for another thread, but the truth is that we just don't really play well and get along with others like we used to in the past.  Or when we didn't like someone, we grinned and bore it and walked away shaking our heads.  Now it's all about the confrontation.  

Had the people who saw rittenhouse with a slung rifle just left him the fuck alone, there also wouldn't be 2 dead people and two other lives ruined forever.  If they felt scared by the rifle, GTFO of there.  If they were worried that he might become a mass shooter - then retreat to a safe distance, shadow him, video him, and call the Po-LEECE.  The folks who chased him instigated that gun battle.  Same with AA....  if those 3 yokels were worried that he was a thief, then call the cops and follow him from a safe distance until they arrived.  If the woman who hit a motorcyclist was worried for her life and he followed her - stay the fuck inside and call the cops.  If the motorcyclist wanted her to not get away - follow her to her house, call the cops and wait out in the street until they arrive.  If chad wanted his kids, then walk back to the car and call the cops and CPS and remove yourself from the confrontation with an armed asshole.  Zero of these people would be dead if they had just followed some common sense.  But if sense was actually "common", we wouldn't need a separate word for it - it would just be called sense.  Start teaching Chil-ren to be polite, to learn the art of walking away and that that doesn't make them a pussy if they do.  

The key here to solving this is on parents, educators, and the rest of society.  There's obviously a LOT more to it than that, but it's got to start somewhere.  We got to start understanding a basic set of societal rules of politeness, understanding and responsibilities as a citizen.  Until we stop focusing on tools and start focusing on BEHAVIOR, then we will continue to spin our wheels and get nowhere.

Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Why is it on "the rest of society" to solve the problem that assholes with gunz cause? Why can't you ammosexuals be part of the solution?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The key here to solving this is on parents, educators, and the rest of society. ....

LMFAO. You want us to shrink from the violent gun types, who happen to be carrying gunz, to terrorize. You are full of fluff, cuz domestic tranquility.

The overweight lady down at the Safeway, with the blue hair? She has no need to shrink from you, or from Kyle, or from George Zimmerman, or from Derik Chauvin, or from Darrel Gates.

Something fucked up in the quote function, there. Not my words AT ALL

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites