Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Man tells police he was "standing his ground" after he showed up to his neighbor's house with a gun because the party was too loud   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Houston, unincorporated areas, concealed handgun, Baytown, Grant Scheiner  
•       •       •

8407 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jun 2012 at 6:07 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-09 10:07:50 PM  

Bunnyhat: I'm pretty sure the first thing police ask for is all of the websites I post on.


It's the lawyers you should be worried about finding it. Online posts are the first thing everyone finds when googling around. Based on your fark postings I could tell you your own full name, it wouldn't be very hard to do the same thing backwards.
 
2012-06-09 10:18:22 PM  
Decent summary of the NC law changes - Link

Not that any of this has anything to do with the crazy ass moron that needs to get a needle or life behind bars
 
2012-06-09 10:48:14 PM  

My Yali or Yours: If you carry a gun and are not a cop, you have a small penis. End of story.

 
2012-06-09 10:57:22 PM  

Begoggle: I should be able to shoot anyone I want, any time.
Otherwise, Obama the Socialist Muslim is trying to take away my guns and evil-ution and illegals.


Come on spice it up a little... Say he's going to kick your puppy as well.
 
2012-06-09 11:00:26 PM  
If I ever get trolled on Fark I'm gonna have to stand my ground no matter where you live.
 
2012-06-09 11:04:51 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Begoggle: I should be able to shoot anyone I want, any time.
Otherwise, Obama the Socialist Muslim is trying to take away my guns and evil-ution and illegals.

Come on spice it up a little... Say he's going to kick your puppy as well.


Oh, just come on out and say what it all boils down to: he's going to fark you wife - and she will like it!
 
2012-06-09 11:13:03 PM  
This is what you say: "Sorry for party rockin'."
 
2012-06-09 11:15:40 PM  

flamingboard: If I ever get trolled on Fark I'm gonna have to stand my ground no matter where you live.


i3.kym-cdn.com

Bring it Poindexter!
 
2012-06-09 11:16:23 PM  

bugontherug: BarkingUnicorn: I missed that part. Might swing my vote, actually.

You make a good case.

Thank you. The prosecutor alleged in her probable cause affidavit that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after getting off the phone with police. This is a key fact, and I believe she's going to be able to put together a timeline which proves it.

But at the most basic level, the undisputed evidence shows we have an armed, angry, aggressive Zimmerman pissed off that "these assholes always get away," and an unarmed Trayvon who was so shaken up he tried to run away. I believe that's enough to find Zimmerman started the physical fight by itself.


Nonsense. Martin was a demon-spawn hopped up on drugs after beating up people on a bus and stealing their earrings who was prowling the streets casing houses and looking for innocents to tear to pieces. It was fortunate that this evil waste of flesh was heroically gunned down by the shining knight Zimmerman, who had taken it upon himself to slay all threats to his peaceful town. He deserves the highest medal in the land for putting down this savage animal.

/my 9beers impression, what'cha think?
 
2012-06-09 11:25:44 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: flamingboard: If I ever get trolled on Fark I'm gonna have to stand my ground no matter where you live.

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 640x495]

Bring it Poindexter!


i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-09 11:27:53 PM  
As someone who doesn't live in a stand your ground state I'm going to ask my legislature to pass a narrow resolution allowing us to preemptively declare war on, and nuke into oblivion any state with a stand your ground law on the grounds that I'm in fear for my life and only a preemptive war will protect me.
 
2012-06-09 11:30:19 PM  

flamingboard: Representative of the unwashed masses: flamingboard: If I ever get trolled on Fark I'm gonna have to stand my ground no matter where you live.

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 640x495]

Bring it Poindexter!

[i.imgur.com image 497x373]


The Rock band controller guitars are a nice touch. Pardon me whilst I stab ou my eyes...
 
2012-06-10 12:02:27 AM  

Bunnyhat: So what I'm getting is that if one of my neighbors comes on my property armed, I should shoot first and ask questions later.
Because apparently even if he is the one trespassing on my property, he can shoot me dead and be justified in it.

Fluffy, how about you grab one of the guns out of, I'm sure, your large collection and come on over.
I want to test this theory out.


What I'm getting is that you fail at life.

My entire point this whole time is that YOU DO NOT ARGUE THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAW WITH A CRAZY MAN WAVING A GUN AT YOU. YOU DO WHATEVER HE WANTS IN ORDER TO CALM HIM DOWN.

It seems to me like half the farkers here would walk up to him and say " I say dear sir, but our music is at a perfectly normal volume and I would appreciate it if you took your complaints elsewhere." Then get shot. The other half would say "fark you asshole! I'm gonna shoot you first and keep partying!" Then get shot.


But yeah, Why don't all you crucify me for suggesting that the victims did nothing but escalate a bad situation till it got them killed.
 
2012-06-10 12:07:02 AM  

fluffy2097: LasersHurt: I am focusing on how they should work, because that's what laws are all about. You seem to think that everyone should be ready for people to pull guns on them, and always give in to their demands.

I take a "one-step-back" approach where PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE PULLING GUNS ALL THE FARKING TIME.

We're not talking about getting mugged in an alley, where it's a criminal and you're best to just give him your shiat. We're talking about people who think the law is giving them the OK to wander into any situation with a gun.

So you're in magical fairy land then. Best of luck when you encounter a mugger. I'm sure he'll sit around and let you call the police so they can save you before he stabs you and steals your wallet.


If you are at a party, and a man shows up on your front yard with a pistol, telling you to turn that shiat down do you?
A:Turn that shiat down?
B:Call the cops?
C:Turn that shiat down AND call the cops?
D:Tell the crazy man with a loaded weapon you're going to gun him down before he guns you down.

Which of these do you think will have a good outcome?

When you are dealing with a crazy person, it is your job to de-escalate the situation. The crazy person isn't going to be rational. If that means giving into a few unreasonable demands, FINE, it keeps you from getting shot and as soon as the cops show up your crazed gunman will be arrested anyways.

Turning the music down could have prevented any of this from ever happening, even though the gunman was a crazed maniac. Instead, the partygoers escalated.


I believe you are suffering from a very acute case of MISSING THE POINT.

I haven't read every post on this thread, but the point is NOT how to handle a violent farked up confrontation.

The POINT IS what should the intent, letter, and tone of the law be for these situations. It seems that SYG type laws are validating aggressive psychopathic behavior, at least in the minds of the aggressors and in some cases in the reality of a court room or DA's office.

If some farkwit INITIATES a situation to rob or harm you, I have no problem with taking any action to protect yourself. Including deadly force. Or in the alternative making a prudent decision to capitulate and seeking law enforcement after the fact.

These laws are pushing the the mindset the other way that a person who initiates a confrontation, even an unreasonable one, gets to go all 'old west' and whoever is left standing was 'defending themselves'. That IMO, ain't a good way to set the tone of the law.
 
2012-06-10 12:56:20 AM  

bugontherug: BarkingUnicorn: I don't buy Zimmerman's story at all. But there's nothing to refute it.

Yes, there is. Facts which are not in dispute:

* Zimmerman was so angry, he could not refrain from using foul language and epithets while on the phone with police.

* Zimmerman was especially angry that "these assholes always get away." From this, and combined with his angry, aggressive demeanor, we may infer that Zimmmerman set out with the intent to detain Trayvon.

* Zimmerman was carrying a loaded firearm, which gives rise to the inference he was confident in his ability to handle a physical confrontation.

* When asked to arrange a meeting place with the officer, Zimmerman declined. Instead, he asked that the officer call him upon arrival. This evidence adds to the inference that Zimmerman intended to follow Trayvon after hanging up with the police.

* Trayvon tried to avoid confrontation, by fleeing from Zimmerman.

* Trayvon was not carrying a loaded firearm, or any weapon at all.

* Trayvon was conducting lawful business in a place he had a right to be, and minding his own business.

Thus, it is undisputed that an armed, angry, and confrontational Zimmerman had a physical confrontation with Trayvon after a) know for a fact he pursued Trayvon before talking to the police, and b) we may permissibly infer from the undisputed evidence he continued to pursue Trayvon after talking to the police. We likewise know Trayvon, unarmed, tried to avoid physical confrontation altogether.

The undisputed facts alone give rise to the inference that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. In reality, the only evidence Trayvon started the physical confrontation comes from Zimmerman himself. We now know Zimmerman is less than credible, and the most reasonable course of action is to disregard his statements.

We have other credible evidence supporting the inference that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. Specifically, Trayvon's girlfriend's statement that Trayvon was fright ...


Assumption. Assumption. Assumption. Assumption. Assumption.

You're a farking idiot.
 
2012-06-10 01:06:34 AM  
He's gonna get away with it.
 
2012-06-10 02:24:20 AM  

fluffy2097: Bunnyhat: So what I'm getting is that if one of my neighbors comes on my property armed, I should shoot first and ask questions later.
Because apparently even if he is the one trespassing on my property, he can shoot me dead and be justified in it.

Fluffy, how about you grab one of the guns out of, I'm sure, your large collection and come on over.
I want to test this theory out.

What I'm getting is that you fail at life.

My entire point this whole time is that YOU DO NOT ARGUE THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAW WITH A CRAZY MAN WAVING A GUN AT YOU. YOU DO WHATEVER HE WANTS IN ORDER TO CALM HIM DOWN.

It seems to me like half the farkers here would walk up to him and say " I say dear sir, but our music is at a perfectly normal volume and I would appreciate it if you took your complaints elsewhere." Then get shot. The other half would say "fark you asshole! I'm gonna shoot you first and keep partying!" Then get shot.


But yeah, Why don't all you crucify me for suggesting that the victims did nothing but escalate a bad situation till it got them killed.


IMO you're seeing this case in isolation, where others are seeing it in terms of its possible ramifications. Neither a guilty verdict nor an acquittal will bring back the victim in this case, but an acquittal will send the message that it's legally permissible to shoot people who annoy you.
 
2012-06-10 04:14:41 AM  
Dispatcher: 911, What's your emergency?
Shooter: Um, yeah. I just shot a guy...in his own home. Um...he...I mean, I...I was standing my ground.
Dispatcher: That's sounds pretty sketchy.
Shooter: He was black.
Dispatcher: Oh, OK then. Have a nice day.
 
2012-06-10 05:16:45 AM  

gblive: This line from another more fully detailed article is classic.

"Although he shouts several times that the music is too loud, it is not heard on the recording"

// Sounds like he is over there under totally false pretenses.


Coupled with telling dispatch 'oh noes they're going to kill me I have to protect myself' and then standing there waiting for the confrontation to happen....... dude sounds like he'd make a great crooked cop. The retired firefighter dude knew exactly what he was doing by describing the shiat 'as it happened', even though none of it happened the way he was describing it. If all witnesses have is shouts, because they don't actually see what's going on, then be sure to shout something that's to your benefit.

The lies become 'truth'. "'he said 'someone's coming at me!'" becomes 'someone came at him'.
 
2012-06-10 06:10:50 AM  

fluffy2097: Bunnyhat: So what I'm getting is that if one of my neighbors comes on my property armed, I should shoot first and ask questions later.
Because apparently even if he is the one trespassing on my property, he can shoot me dead and be justified in it.

Fluffy, how about you grab one of the guns out of, I'm sure, your large collection and come on over.
I want to test this theory out.

What I'm getting is that you fail at life.

My entire point this whole time is that YOU DO NOT ARGUE THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAW WITH A CRAZY MAN WAVING A GUN AT YOU. YOU DO WHATEVER HE WANTS IN ORDER TO CALM HIM DOWN.

It seems to me like half the farkers here would walk up to him and say " I say dear sir, but our music is at a perfectly normal volume and I would appreciate it if you took your complaints elsewhere." Then get shot. The other half would say "fark you asshole! I'm gonna shoot you first and keep partying!" Then get shot.


But yeah, Why don't all you crucify me for suggesting that the victims did nothing but escalate a bad situation till it got them killed.


At least you get to know you are right. Arguing reality with people who are only willing to see utopia isn't really productive. Once someone with a gun shows up every argument of "but he shouldn't have taken the gun with him" is pretty much moot. As is "but I get to announce that I'm going to get my gun because I get to defend myself to." The only reasonable course of action would be to turn down the music, even if it already was at a socially acceptable level. Just turn off the stereo or something. You don't argue with some paranoid fark who has a history of brandishing his gun in arguments and has his gun with him to complain about some noise.

I'd rather be alive than "right" or "justified" in my actions.
 
2012-06-10 06:21:56 AM  

The Southern Dandy: Dispatcher: 911, What's your emergency?
Shooter: Um, yeah. I just shot a guy...in his own home. Um...he...I mean, I...I was standing my ground.
Dispatcher: That's sounds pretty sketchy.
Shooter: He was black.
Dispatcher: Oh, OK then. Have a nice day.


Why even call 911. Just skip to the morgue.
 
2012-06-10 09:14:07 AM  
The "stand your ground" law excludes those who stand that ground while in the commission of a crime. Trespassing is a crime.
 
2012-06-10 09:15:52 AM  

DerAppie: I'd rather be alive than "right" or "justified" in my actions.


At least someone here understands there would be no court case that could possibly validate SYG if the party goers had de-escalated the situation instead of inciting a crazed man to shoot you.
 
2012-06-10 09:22:15 AM  
Yikes. It's stories like this that make americans look awfull to other countries. I'm sure %80 percent of americans may not have handled the situation like the man in this story did.. but the sensible actually not retarded people of this world dont make headlines, do they?

Acting with aggression never usually makes a happy ending in this sort of story. :(
 
2012-06-10 09:32:01 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: bugontherug: BarkingUnicorn: I missed that part. Might swing my vote, actually.

You make a good case.

Thank you. The prosecutor alleged in her probable cause affidavit that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after getting off the phone with police. This is a key fact, and I believe she's going to be able to put together a timeline which proves it.

But at the most basic level, the undisputed evidence shows we have an armed, angry, aggressive Zimmerman pissed off that "these assholes always get away," and an unarmed Trayvon who was so shaken up he tried to run away. I believe that's enough to find Zimmerman started the physical fight by itself.

Nonsense. Martin was a demon-spawn hopped up on drugs after beating up people on a bus and stealing their earrings who was prowling the streets casing houses and looking for innocents to tear to pieces. It was fortunate that this evil waste of flesh was heroically gunned down by the shining knight Zimmerman, who had taken it upon himself to slay all threats to his peaceful town. He deserves the highest medal in the land for putting down this savage animal.

/my 9beers impression, what'cha think?


Not bad. = )
 
2012-06-10 09:33:03 AM  

akede: Assumption. Assumption. Assumption. Assumption. Assumption.

You're a farking idiot.


I live with my mom.

At least try.
 
2012-06-10 10:08:46 AM  

My Yali or Yours: If you carry a gun and are not a cop, you have a small penis. End of story.


I thought cops already had small penises.
 
2012-06-10 10:23:54 AM  
All I want to know is, when the guy went over to complain about the noise, did they say to him, 'sorry for party rockin'
 
2012-06-10 10:44:01 AM  

fluffy2097: .


Ah, you're a psychopath. I really hope you don't have any firearms.
 
2012-06-10 10:46:04 AM  
I read SYG story when a kid was buying some weed, the place he's buying from has a guy storm in to rob the place, kid shoots bad guy, SYG right? WRONG. He was buying weed, which is a crime, SYG does not apply, murder 2.
 
2012-06-10 11:52:47 AM  

bugontherug:
On Nov. 28th, North Carolina's then current Castle Doctrine already applied to homes. What the Dec. 1st law did, then, was expand the already extant Castle Doctrine for homes to apply to vehicles and workplaces. The Castle Doctrine by definition abrogates the duty to retreat inside the home. So as of Nov. 28th, there was no duty to retreat from inside the home.


I can state conclusively that North Carolina law prior to December 1, 2011 required that you retreat in your home as part of the earlier weak "castle doctrine" in our state. I just confirmed this with my neighbor who works for our state's leading criminal defense attorney practice.

I provided multiple references, your own article link refutes your assertions, and you can easily find more example cases in NC prior 2011 of homeowners being tried for shooting intruders by using Google.

All of the earlier cases had one thing in common, regularly DAs would charge the homeowner who shot the intruder, and the case would go to trial. The jury of 12 would find the homeowner not guilty 99% of the time - making the entire exercise of charging the homeowner a waste of tax payer money. The other common thread was that the criminal intruder(s) would also sue the homeowner in civil court (some won, others did not). The new NC Castle Law protects homeowners from these frivilous civil suits from criminal intruders.
 
2012-06-10 12:11:23 PM  
 
2012-06-10 01:40:39 PM  
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy follows Sovereign Citizen ideology - people that are sure in the belief that writing or uttering a special combination of legal parlance will bestow special rights and powers, making them immune from result of their actions. He bragged to a neighbor that he done exactly that, and it's unfortunate that it won't be told to the jury.
 
2012-06-10 03:29:50 PM  

fluffy2097: DerAppie: I'd rather be alive than "right" or "justified" in my actions.

At least someone here understands there would be no court case that could possibly validate SYG if the party goers had de-escalated the situation instead of inciting a crazed man to shoot you.


What more could they do? They turned down the music, just like the guy wanted. He goes over there anyways with a loaded and cocked gun. Should everyone roll over and give raging psychopaths whatever they want when they go on the warpath?
 
2012-06-10 03:33:29 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: fluffy2097: DerAppie: I'd rather be alive than "right" or "justified" in my actions.

At least someone here understands there would be no court case that could possibly validate SYG if the party goers had de-escalated the situation instead of inciting a crazed man to shoot you.

What more could they do? They turned down the music, just like the guy wanted. He goes over there anyways with a loaded and cocked gun. Should everyone roll over and give raging psychopaths whatever they want when they go on the warpath?


According to his neighbors this is the same raging psychopath who pointed his gun at neighbors demanding that they mow their lawns. My question is why he was not locked up a long time ago for intimidating the entire neighborhood.
 
2012-06-10 04:02:57 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: What more could they do? They turned down the music, just like the guy wanted. He goes over there anyways with a loaded and cocked gun. Should everyone roll over and give raging psychopaths whatever they want when they go on the warpath?


Lets see. In this situation, I'm unarmed and outgunned by a person who is unreasonable and threatening to kill me. In this situation, I'd shiat in my hand and eat it if it meant getting to live long enough to call the cops and say "some psychopath just held me at gunpoint, made me shiat in my hand and eat it."

What would you do? Tell him he's crazy and breaking the law and that he should go home? Or are you going to say something about his mothers moisture content then turn your farking back to him to go "get your own gun."
 
2012-06-10 04:07:24 PM  

gblive: According to his neighbors this is the same raging psychopath who pointed his gun at neighbors demanding that they mow their lawns. My question is why he was not locked up a long time ago for intimidating the entire neighborhood.


I'd love to see some police reports on his prior behavior. It'd give their neighbors story a lot more credit. It does seem odd that a man win a concealed carry permit could regularly assault people with firearms, have it reported, and still be able to keep his concealed carry permit.
 
2012-06-10 04:19:12 PM  
"Joe Horn didn't get indicted. It's going to be hard to convict somebody in these circumstances," he said.

Joe Horn killed two illegals who were in the middle of a crime when he shot them. Both of the dead guys were career criminals who didn't even have a right to be in the country.

The guy in this article went to someones house and shot them because he didn't like their music. The were having a party, not breaking into someones house. They were a teacher and a firefighter, not career criminals who had no right to be in the country. Vastly different situation.
 
2012-06-10 04:24:24 PM  

nekom: I'm quite happy with running a potential burglar off, I don't want to kill them.


That's the difference between you (a seemingly normal person), and some of the psychopaths that use these laws to unleash their deep seated mental issues. They see this law as an excuse to "right the wrongs" they perceive exist in society, to bring "those people" in line, and to achieve some sort of "justice" outside a system they see as never giving those who commit criminal acts the punishment they "deserve".

You just want to get the intruder out of your house and away from you and your family.

Therein lies the difference. You are looking out for your safety and the safety of your family, while they seek some sort of revenge due to their feeling of "violation" and self righteousness. "How dare someone break into my house!" and so on.

These laws, while in their creators' minds may have had good intentions, failed to take into account their corollaries: the laws of unintended consequences. The gun nuts and the crazies have taken this and run with it, believing it will shield them from the consequences of their insanity. So far, they have been proven right.
 
2012-06-10 04:32:47 PM  

moefuggenbrew: I read SYG story when a kid was buying some weed, the place he's buying from has a guy storm in to rob the place, kid shoots bad guy, SYG right? WRONG. He was buying weed, which is a crime, SYG does not apply, murder 2.


I have trouble finding sympathy for him. You're going to do a drug deal, you take a gun, and you end up killing someone. Yeah, that's the kind of thing that gets you locked up.

I don't know anything about that story other than what you posted, but it kind of sounds like one thug killed another, and we have two less thugs on the street.
 
2012-06-10 08:28:08 PM  

fluffy2097: Keizer_Ghidorah: What more could they do? They turned down the music, just like the guy wanted. He goes over there anyways with a loaded and cocked gun. Should everyone roll over and give raging psychopaths whatever they want when they go on the warpath?

Lets see. In this situation, I'm unarmed and outgunned by a person who is unreasonable and threatening to kill me. In this situation, I'd shiat in my hand and eat it if it meant getting to live long enough to call the cops and say "some psychopath just held me at gunpoint, made me shiat in my hand and eat it."

What would you do? Tell him he's crazy and breaking the law and that he should go home? Or are you going to say something about his mothers moisture content then turn your farking back to him to go "get your own gun."


Shoot him in the face for threatening my life on my property after I already did what he requested.

I'm sorry we're not all kowtowing to your opinion, but not all of us enjoy being stepped on by retards on power trips due to mental imbalances.
 
2012-06-10 08:31:26 PM  

rewind2846: nekom: I'm quite happy with running a potential burglar off, I don't want to kill them.

That's the difference between you (a seemingly normal person), and some of the psychopaths that use these laws to unleash their deep seated mental issues. They see this law as an excuse to "right the wrongs" they perceive exist in society, to bring "those people" in line, and to achieve some sort of "justice" outside a system they see as never giving those who commit criminal acts the punishment they "deserve".

You just want to get the intruder out of your house and away from you and your family.

Therein lies the difference. You are looking out for your safety and the safety of your family, while they seek some sort of revenge due to their feeling of "violation" and self righteousness. "How dare someone break into my house!" and so on.

These laws, while in their creators' minds may have had good intentions, failed to take into account their corollaries: the laws of unintended consequences. The gun nuts and the crazies have taken this and run with it, believing it will shield them from the consequences of their insanity. So far, they have been proven right.


Of course, there are also those who didn't want to be forced to take a life to protect their own but had to anyway, and this law protects them too.

That's the funny thing about anything, someone will always find a way to twist it to suit their desires.
 
2012-06-10 10:24:28 PM  
/nice and legal
//not like this hot link
 
2012-06-10 11:27:39 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Shoot him in the face for threatening my life on my property after I already did what he requested.

I'm sorry we're not all kowtowing to your opinion, but not all of us enjoy being stepped on by retards on power trips due to mental imbalances.


You are unarmed. The psycho has the gun. Are you saying you are going to turn your back on an armed psychotic after telling him you're going to get your gun to shoot him in the face?

I suppose if you had a gun up your sleeve and knew you were quicker on the draw, shooting the psycho is a valid option, but I don't like the odds. You have to pull your piece out and aim it, psycho has to twitch his index finger.

When someone has a lethal weapon pointed at you and is BEGGING for you to give them a reason to use it, How you feel about your rights being trampled by psychos should be at the bottom of your priorities. Staying alive to see the psycho who trampled your rights put into jail should be #1 priority.

I swear, you people watch too many action movies.

On the subject of action movies, The proper way to handle this guy would have been this. He's a known troublemaker. Get everyone else on the block sniper rifles. Any time Mr. Psycho gets ornery you can have rifle barrels pointing out second story windows at him. The citizens with the rifles will have both cover and high ground, and will be out range of accurate pistol fire. If he ever starts making moves threatening the lives of others, you can take his head off before he even knows whats happening.

/yall have no sense of tactics or even imagination. It's pathetic.
 
2012-06-11 02:14:27 AM  
We're the one's who have watched too many action movies?

The question is what the neighbors should have done. The question is rather the guy who shot had the legal right to do so.
Under the horrible SYG laws he just might. He killed people, outright murdered them, even planned to do so (bringing a camera, saying those exact phrases to the 911 operator). and he just might get away with it all because little dicked assholes passed a set of laws that is turning neighborhoods into a bad western.

If this guy get's away with murder, the courts our setting a precedent that it's better to shoot first the moment a potential aggressor presents themselves no matter what the circumstances are.

The problem isn't the neighbor psychopath. We will always have those. The problem is laws that give that psychopath the ability to go crazy on his neighbors and be legally protected for harming and murdering them. He learned those loaded phrases from organization that supported and helped pass SYG laws. So even though it was complete bullshiat situation for him to be using them, he just might be legally protected because gun organizations are helping prop up psychopaths like himself through the passing of horribly written and thoughtout laws.
 
Displayed 45 of 245 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report