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)   In most places, people don't randomly shoot each other while waiting for pizza, and then claim self-defense. And then there is Florida   (foxnews.com) divider line 224
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

5708 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:54 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-20 09:41:23 AM  
He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.
 
2012-12-20 10:56:29 AM  
john-goodman-big-lebowski.jpg
 
2012-12-20 10:57:54 AM  
Responsible gun owner. Nothing to see here.
 
2012-12-20 10:58:02 AM  

Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.


Thanks Mr. Stewart.
 
2012-12-20 10:58:32 AM  
madafakin PIGS, amirite?
 
2012-12-20 10:58:39 AM  

Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.


Sometimes I think that having 7 billion people in the world is making things too crowded and making people just a little too cranky.
 
2012-12-20 10:58:41 AM  
TFA:

Man shot at Florida pizza restaurant for complaining about service

Published December 20, 2012

FoxNews.com

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - A Tampa Bay area man accused of shooting and wounding another man during an argument at a pizza restaurant said his actions were justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

St. Petersburg police say 52-year-old Michael Jock was waiting in line at a Little Caesars on Sunday when another customer, 49-year-old Randall White, began complaining about the slow service. The men exchanged words, which turned into a shoving match.

The Tampa Bay Times reports that Jock pulled a revolver and shot White in the lower torso. The two struggled and White was shot a second time.

Jock, who has a concealed weapons permit, told officers he was justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force if they believe their lives are in danger.

The officers charged Jock with aggravated battery with a weapon and shooting within a building. He was later released on $20,000 bail.


There, now the rest of you don't have to click on foxnews.com.
 
2012-12-20 10:58:45 AM  
They should've just burnt their Christmas tree and called it a day.
 
2012-12-20 10:59:10 AM  

Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.


You broke your little plastic thing that keeps the box top out of the cheese.
 
2012-12-20 10:59:46 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.

Thanks Mr. Stewart.


BTW, you broke your little pizzas.
 
2012-12-20 10:59:47 AM  
PS Something about a hate crime because the victim was White.
 
2012-12-20 10:59:56 AM  

damndirtyape: Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.

You broke your little plastic thing that keeps the box top out of the cheese.


Holy fark, laughing my ass off, perfect followup to that.
 
2012-12-20 11:00:32 AM  
what some people in Florida must think:

Stand Your Ground = if you're standing on the ground, just go ahead and shoot
 
2012-12-20 11:01:12 AM  
They didn't shoot each other. One man shot another man who, it is claimed, attacked him.

Did you read your own article, subby? It's something like 150 words long.

You weren't there, but you somehow know whether the man who got shot posed a threat.

You live in a world of your own imaginings. Progg insularity at its finest.
 
2012-12-20 11:01:45 AM  
He has a conceal carry license. This means he is a law abiding citizen. The other guy absolutely must have been threatening his life, since law abiding conceal carry citizens never break the law. Look at the statistics if you don't believe me.
 
2012-12-20 11:02:05 AM  
For what reason was the shooter charged with a crime? I have been assured that Florida's "stand your ground" statute allows shooters to escape any legal charges simply by claiming to have "felt threatened".
 
2012-12-20 11:03:01 AM  
All I want for the holidays is more repeats
 
2012-12-20 11:03:51 AM  

damndirtyape: Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.

You broke your little plastic thing that keeps the box top out of the cheese.


I think that's considered a war crime in some places.
 
2012-12-20 11:04:12 AM  
Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.
 
2012-12-20 11:04:56 AM  
Shoulda just got the hot and ready. Crisis averted.
 
2012-12-20 11:05:01 AM  

Dull Cow Eyes: what some people in Florida must think:

Stand Your Ground = if you're standing on the ground, just go ahead and shoot


Yeah, there is a massive misunderstanding of what constitutes "fear for my life" for some people. Perhaps it is a result of the constant bell-ringing of gun advocates that "Forks and fists, bats and bottles" are just as deadly as guns, in that as soon as someone brandishes a fist or any solid object, b*tches think they're in mortal peril.

This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death. Now he's just going to get shoved into a cell for 10-20 years.
 
2012-12-20 11:06:47 AM  

Farce-Side: Shoulda just got the hot and ready. Crisis averted.


Yeah; once you've sunk to the Little Caesar's level, just accept your fate and get the thing in the warmer tray with the red disks on it for $5. At least spare yourself the indignity of waiting.
 
2012-12-20 11:07:13 AM  
BAN...something.... !!  Or at the very least, think of the children....
 
2012-12-20 11:08:12 AM  
Pizza Place Fight Trifecta in play!
 
2012-12-20 11:08:39 AM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!


Unlike you, rational people don't fill in the gaps in their knowledge with assumptions that happen to fit their political biases.

Since you weren't there, and the article contains no evidence, you have no idea if the man who was shot posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

See, when people do that, you can kill them. It's not only justified, but wholly lawful. Apparently, that basic principle of ethics bothers you.
 
2012-12-20 11:09:04 AM  
It's a whole new brand of customer service.
 
2012-12-20 11:09:39 AM  
"Jock, who has a concealed weapons permit, told officers he was justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force if they believe their lives are in danger."

Well it's settled then.
 
2012-12-20 11:10:36 AM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.


Go die in a fire.

What does him having a concealed carry permit have to do with anything?
If he didn't have that permit, this story would have turned out the same but there would be little to no possibility that the shooter would have a CHANCE of being considered innocent even if he was defending his life.
 
2012-12-20 11:12:58 AM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-20 11:14:54 AM  
They bring an expired coupon, you bring a gun.
 
Its the Florida way.
 
2012-12-20 11:15:01 AM  

GanjSmokr: BAN...something.... !!  Or at the very least, think of the children....


If it'll help, I'm okay with banning Little Caesers.
 
2012-12-20 11:16:48 AM  
It's almost like walking around with a gun is prematurely escalating any confrontation.
 
2012-12-20 11:17:21 AM  
If 'shooting somebody who is behaving like an asshole in public' is the same thing as 'standing your ground' I've got a friend who just begs for a bullet on a distressingly frequent basis.
 
Think I better warn him to stay the hell out of Florida...
 
/ 56-yr old men shouldn't throw tantrums in public
// so embarrassing 
 
2012-12-20 11:17:35 AM  

here to help: Responsible gun owner. Nothing to see here.


?
 
2012-12-20 11:17:40 AM  

factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.


Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.
 
2012-12-20 11:18:12 AM  

Jacobin: Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.

Sometimes I think that having 7 billion people in the world is making things too crowded and making people just a little too cranky.


You know, I have had that thought before, myself.
 
2012-12-20 11:19:12 AM  
The article didn't mention race so its hard to know whose side to be on.

ZOMG!
 
2012-12-20 11:19:16 AM  
This guy was obviously just acting on behalf of his well regulated militia.
 
2012-12-20 11:19:23 AM  

Cold_Sassy: Jacobin: Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.

Sometimes I think that having 7 billion people in the world is making things too crowded and making people just a little too cranky.

You know, I have had that thought before, myself.


Feel free to kill yourselves.
 
2012-12-20 11:19:29 AM  
I . . said . . . NO . . . Goddamn . . . ANCHOVIES
 
2012-12-20 11:20:00 AM  
Ah, here they come. A NORMAL and RATIONAL person does not let some guy complaining about poor service at a restaurant escalate into a fight and then shoot the poor bastard.

The sane people in this world are getting fed up with your relentless excuses. I don't have a problem with RESPONSIBLE gun ownership but there have to be some far more stringent screening and training processes in place. Not let any tiny dicked buttf*cker yokel with a bad attitude fulfill his fantasy of Tombstone.

Get it together. How many more kids are you willing to let get massacred before admitting that you are WRONG!
 
2012-12-20 11:20:07 AM  

GanjSmokr: BAN...something.... !!  Or at the very least, think of the children....


Ban Florida pizza.
 
2012-12-20 11:20:51 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: It's almost like walking around with a gun is prematurely escalating any confrontation.


DING DING DING
 
Winna!
 
2012-12-20 11:20:56 AM  

Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.


This is why the law is bullshiat.
 
1.  Talk shiat to someone.
2.  They walk towards you.
3.  Shoot them.
 
2012-12-20 11:21:09 AM  
The solution to this is obvious: the pizza should have been armed.
 
2012-12-20 11:21:12 AM  

Nothing To See Here: here to help: Responsible gun owner. Nothing to see here.

?


Ha!
 
2012-12-20 11:21:50 AM  
What I want to know is, whatever happened to the "Pizza! Pizza!" gimmick?
 
2012-12-20 11:22:11 AM  
This wouldn't have happened if we'd have banned scary-looking rifles and large-capacity magazines.
 
2012-12-20 11:22:34 AM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.


Hyperbolic post is hyperbolic.

BUT...no reasonable gun rights proponent would suggest that "NO licensed gun owner would EVER" anything. Statistically, licensed concealed carriers perform fewer crime.
 
2012-12-20 11:22:35 AM  

factoryconnection: Dull Cow Eyes: what some people in Florida must think:

Stand Your Ground = if you're standing on the ground, just go ahead and shoot

Yeah, there is a massive misunderstanding of what constitutes "fear for my life" for some people. Perhaps it is a result of the constant bell-ringing of gun advocates that "Forks and fists, bats and bottles" are just as deadly as guns, in that as soon as someone brandishes a fist or any solid object, b*tches think they're in mortal peril.

This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death. Now he's just going to get shoved into a cell for 10-20 years.


The law in Florida is if you are in fear for your life or fear of grievous bodily harm. In real life, unlike the movies, a punch to the head can cause grievous bodily harm, or even death.

I would think the pizza place has security cameras so it will be easy to tell who started the physical confrontation and who should be going to jail in this case. Let's not let a little thing like facts stop all the derp going on in this thread though.
 
2012-12-20 11:23:03 AM  

Phinn: Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.


They were in a shoving match, as reported. It used to be that shoving matches resulted in bruises, hot tempers, and maybe a broken bone. Now it is a death sentence.

Only because this hot-head is a terrible shot is the other hot-head not dead. Two round, point blank range over a f*cking pizza wait? There's plenty of evidence implicit in the story: there was only one man with a gun, and it was coincidentally the only one fearing for his life. Notice that the shooter wasn't under arrest at the hospital because of his grievous beating injuries... Surprise!
 
2012-12-20 11:23:17 AM  

Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/man-shot-at-st-pete-p i zza-joint-had-been-complaining-about-slow-service/1266589
"He told officers he feared for his life. He mentioned that he thought White had an object in his hand, then backed off that when officers pressed him. "

If he believed his life to be in danger it is because he is a paranoid individual that has no business being in possession of a firearm.
 
2012-12-20 11:23:49 AM  

tricycleracer: This is why the law is bullshiat.

1. Talk shiat to someone.
2. They walk towards you.
3. Shoot them.


Exactly. Just like Zimmerman asshole. I don't care if Trayvon was selling crack to babby's. He started a fight he couldn't finish. The worst that would have happened was he took a beatdown (which he deserved). Instead the kid is dead.
 
2012-12-20 11:24:26 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: GanjSmokr: BAN...something.... !!  Or at the very least, think of the children....

If it'll help, I'm okay with banning Little Caesers.


I'll second that. That has GOT to be the worst pizza ever.
 
2012-12-20 11:25:34 AM  

Mattyb710: The law in Florida is if you are in fear for your life or fear of grievous bodily harm. In real life, unlike the movies, a punch to the head can cause grievous bodily harm, or even death.


We've turned into a nation of pussies and guns are helping.
 
2012-12-20 11:25:35 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: GanjSmokr: BAN...something.... !!  Or at the very least, think of the children....

If it'll help, I'm okay with banning Little Caesers.


Well, this never would have happened if Little Caesers had already been banned... I'm with you. Ban Little Caesers.
 
2012-12-20 11:25:47 AM  

here to help: How many more kids are you willing to let get massacred before admitting that you are WRONG!


How many people are you willing to be raped, robbed, beaten and killed because they were prohibited from using the tool they needed to defend themselves?

Why are you so in favor of allowing rapists, robbers and batterers to commit their crimes with impunity?
 
2012-12-20 11:26:19 AM  

stevarooni: BUT...no reasonable gun rights proponent would suggest that "NO licensed gun owner would EVER" anything


And where are they? They should be the ones freaking the hell out about stuff like this. Instead they continue to push back against proper safeguards and screenings.
 
2012-12-20 11:27:12 AM  

Mattyb710: The law in Florida is if you are in fear for your life or fear of grievous bodily harm. In real life, unlike the movies, a punch to the head can cause grievous bodily harm, or even death.


You know what can cause grievous bodily harm, and does WAAAAAAAY more than punches or shoves? Gunfire. And yet somehow this lunatic with TWO rounds at point blank range couldn't even seal that deal. If he was so in fear of his life from this uncaged animal, what's with the soft-tissue shots?

This isn't even a matter of it being a bad law, it is a matter of people not understanding the difference between "I started a fight that I'm now losing" and "someone is going to kill me!"
 
2012-12-20 11:27:23 AM  
God damn, there are a lot of paranoid, pant-pissing pussies running around these days.
 
2012-12-20 11:27:52 AM  
Step 1: start a fight with someone in Florida
Step 2: claim your life is in danger and shoot them
Step 3: get out of jail free card/profit
 
2012-12-20 11:28:00 AM  

here to help: Exactly. Just like Zimmerman asshole. I don't care if Trayvon was selling crack to babby's. He started a fight he couldn't finish. The worst that would have happened was he took a beatdown (which he deserved). Instead the kid is dead.


What if Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, beating his head against the backdrop of the sidewalk (Mr. Zimmerman's claim)? Is that a typical beatdown in your part of the world? "Unarmed" does not mean "Incapable of deadly force".
 
2012-12-20 11:28:23 AM  

Phinn: How many people are you willing to be raped, robbed, beaten and killed because they were prohibited from using the tool they needed to defend themselves?

Why are you so in favor of allowing rapists, robbers and batterers to commit their crimes with impunity?


Then support proper screenings. This idiot should NOT have had a gun.
 
2012-12-20 11:28:26 AM  

factoryconnection: Phinn: Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

They were in a shoving match, as reported. It used to be that shoving matches resulted in bruises, hot tempers, and maybe a broken bone. Now it is a death sentence.

Only because this hot-head is a terrible shot is the other hot-head not dead. Two round, point blank range over a f*cking pizza wait? There's plenty of evidence implicit in the story: there was only one man with a gun, and it was coincidentally the only one fearing for his life. Notice that the shooter wasn't under arrest at the hospital because of his grievous beating injuries... Surprise!


Technically, I bet after he pulled out the gun, the other man feared for his life, too.

Doubly so once he was farking shot.
 
2012-12-20 11:28:30 AM  
I got this.

ahem

1. get a concealed weapons permit
2. buy a gun
3. carry it everywhere, praying to the Norse Gods that you get a chance to use it.
4. Start a shoving match in a local eatery because no incident has come up to let you kill someone.
5. Start losing said match to your unarmed opponent.
6. Pull a gun on your unarmed opponent like a little weak biatch, and shoot him multiple times.
7. Claim self defense and "hold my ground" laws apply.
8. Get ass raped repeatedly in the local pokey.
 
2012-12-20 11:29:01 AM  

Cold_Sassy: I'll second that. That has GOT to be the worst pizza ever.


Not as long as The Rat is still slinging pies. You know, Charles Edward Cheese, Esq.?
 
2012-12-20 11:29:32 AM  

occamswrist: Technically, I bet after he pulled out the gun, the other man feared for his life, too.

Doubly so once he was farking shot.


No way.  Only CCW-holders are ever allowed to feel threatened.  Everyone else is a threat to their safety and it's never the other way around.
 
2012-12-20 11:30:10 AM  

Phinn: here to help: How many more kids are you willing to let get massacred before admitting that you are WRONG!

How many people are you willing to be raped, robbed, beaten and killed because they were prohibited from using the tool they needed to defend themselves?

Why are you so in favor of allowing rapists, robbers and batterers to commit their crimes with impunity?


You were doing good for a while there, think you went a little too far past the believability line with this one though. Try again next thread.
 
2012-12-20 11:30:17 AM  

here to help: And where are they? They should be the ones freaking the hell out about stuff like this. Instead they continue to push back against proper safeguards and screenings.


Define "proper safeguards and screenings". Background checks? Domestic violence misdemeanors can get your right to keep and bear arms invalidated, after all. Please, provide this "reasonable measure" that would have affected this particular douche.
 
2012-12-20 11:30:20 AM  

boarch: here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.

Go die in a fire.

What does him having a concealed carry permit have to do with anything?
If he didn't have that permit, this story would have turned out the same but there would be little to no possibility that the shooter would have a CHANCE of being considered innocent even if he was defending his life.


If he didn't have a CCP...he would be breaking the law by walking around in a pizza place with a gun. So, maybe he'd decide not to break the law and leave the gun at home. Then, this would be a story about to middle-aged men getting into an old guy fight about pizza and everyone would laugh. I'm not an anti-gun dude, but THIS is inevitably what will happen if people are allowed to carry guns everywhere. Folks can't control themselves. I can see it now:
 
 
Victim: Hey man, this is some bullshiat. I been waiting 20 minutes for a pizza that's supposed to be ready. My feet hurt. My ankle is bothering me. I have to use the bath...
 
Shooter: Man, would you shut that shiat up? Its enough standing in this line. I don't want to listen to your biatching for another 20 minutes.
 
Victim: Fark you.
 
Shooter: Fark you.
 
*Both men square up*
 
Shooter: Bang.
 
Victim: Dammit! Now my stomach hurts too!
 
Shooter: Bang, again.
 
Victim: This is going to go down as a stupid way to die, if this is the way I go. I should have thought this one through.
 
Shooter: Uhhhh, I was standing my ground, officer. Yeah, that's it.
 
2012-12-20 11:30:34 AM  

here to help: Ah, here they come. A NORMAL and RATIONAL person does not let some guy complaining about poor service at a restaurant escalate into a fight and then shoot the poor bastard.

The sane people in this world are getting fed up with your relentless excuses. I don't have a problem with RESPONSIBLE gun ownership but there have to be some far more stringent screening and training processes in place. Not let any tiny dicked buttf*cker yokel with a bad attitude fulfill his fantasy of Tombstone.

Get it together. How many more kids are you willing to let get massacred before admitting that you are WRONG!


Do we really know all that much about what happened here, other than a) someone was complaining b) someone got shot?

Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that maybe the guy who was complaining was belligerent and threatening? I'm not saying the shooting was justified and the charges against the shooter bear that out but do you seriously think the whole story is that one guy heard another guy complaining and shot him because of it?

Belligerent dickheads getting shot for being belligerent dickheads is not something I feel like legislating against. Seems to me like this played out okay. Asshole gets shot, irresponsible shooter gets charged. It's pretty unlikely (unless someone backs this guy up) that "stand your ground" is going to help him when it comes time to talk to a judge.

But hey, whatever. We could all just keep drooling into our keyboards. That's fun, too.
 
2012-12-20 11:31:10 AM  

stevarooni: What if Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, beating his head against the backdrop of the sidewalk (Mr. Zimmerman's claim)? Is that a typical beatdown in your part of the world? "Unarmed" does not mean "Incapable of deadly force".


The cops were already on their way. He should have dropped it at that. You pick a fight, stalk someone in the middle of the night... expect a beatdown. It's called common sense. And yes where I come from you f*ck around you get knocked the f*ck out. That's why you don't play cowboy if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
Seriously what Zimmerman got was mild.
 
2012-12-20 11:31:15 AM  
maybe they realized they were about eat Little Ceasar's pizza and entered into a suicide pact
 
2012-12-20 11:31:36 AM  
Prediction: No further "Stand Your Ground" laws will be passed - and states that passed them will be moving to repeal.
 
2012-12-20 11:32:18 AM  

Phinn: They didn't shoot each other. One man shot another man who, it is claimed, attacked him.

Did you read your own article, subby? It's something like 150 words long.

You weren't there, but you somehow know whether the man who got shot posed a threat.

You live in a world of your own imaginings. Progg insularity at its finest.


Are you an excellent driver?
 
2012-12-20 11:32:34 AM  

here to help: This idiot should NOT have had a gun.


You are clair-f*ucking-voyant!

This is amazing. Based on 80 lines of text, you just F*CKING KNOW EXACTLY what happened.

Get to the circus or something, dude. NASA. The Pentagon. They could use someone with your kind of super-powers.
 
2012-12-20 11:33:19 AM  

here to help: stevarooni: What if Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, beating his head against the backdrop of the sidewalk (Mr. Zimmerman's claim)? Is that a typical beatdown in your part of the world? "Unarmed" does not mean "Incapable of deadly force".

The cops were already on their way. He should have dropped it at that. You pick a fight, stalk someone in the middle of the night... expect a beatdown. It's called common sense. And yes where I come from you f*ck around you get knocked the f*ck out. That's why you don't play cowboy if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
Seriously what Zimmerman got was mild.


No. Please. Don't.
 
2012-12-20 11:33:44 AM  

factoryconnection: Cold_Sassy: I'll second that. That has GOT to be the worst pizza ever.

Not as long as The Rat is still slinging pies. You know, Charles Edward Cheese, Esq.?


Eh, I'll have to plead ignorance. However, I will take your word for it.

Thank God I've never been there, although if I ever commit a sin large enough to get me to hell, I bet I get a job at Chuck E. Cheese's.
 
2012-12-20 11:33:46 AM  
That law just keeps on giving. What used to be a shoving match or minor fisticuffs resulting in a bruise or two can now escalate into a shooting/possible killing. And why not? Why risk a black eye when you can just gun the guy down? Want to kill a man, but don't want to go to jail? Move to Florida. Start a fight, then just shoot the bastard, claiming you were in fear of your life.
 
2012-12-20 11:34:19 AM  

stevarooni: Domestic violence misdemeanors can get your right to keep and bear arms invalidated,


Good. You want a gun? Don't be a violent asshat. You seriously think people who beat on their OWN family have the temperament needed for responsible gun ownership?

If so, you are part of the problem.
 
2012-12-20 11:34:25 AM  

here to help: The cops were already on their way. He should have dropped it at that. You pick a fight, stalk someone in the middle of the night... expect a beatdown.


:o| Your knowledge of the events of that night are fascinating! Did you watch it on YouTube, or did the Psychic Network provide you with the answers your sought?
 
2012-12-20 11:36:31 AM  

Phinn: You are clair-f*ucking-voyant!

This is amazing. Based on 80 lines of text, you just F*CKING KNOW EXACTLY what happened.

Get to the circus or something, dude. NASA. The Pentagon. They could use someone with your kind of super-powers.


I have seen lots of fights. 99% of them could have been avoided by one party just not taking things to the next level even if the other party was being a dick.
 
2012-12-20 11:36:42 AM  

here to help: Good. You want a gun? Don't be a violent asshat. You seriously think people who beat on their OWN family have the temperament needed for responsible gun ownership?

If so, you are part of the problem.


Eh, it's the misdemeanor part with which I have a problem. Otherwise I agree, convictions for violent stuffs prove that someone is incapable of doing well in society...NO GUN FOR YOU!
 
2012-12-20 11:37:07 AM  

Invisible Pedestrian: Phinn: here to help: How many more kids are you willing to let get massacred before admitting that you are WRONG!

How many people are you willing to be raped, robbed, beaten and killed because they were prohibited from using the tool they needed to defend themselves?

Why are you so in favor of allowing rapists, robbers and batterers to commit their crimes with impunity?

You were doing good for a while there, think you went a little too far past the believability line with this one though. Try again next thread.


Finn likes to troll, look at his profile to see what others have said to him...
 
2012-12-20 11:37:07 AM  
Okay, what requirements and psychological tests do you have to meet to qualify for the military? If you fail those tests you don't qualify for our militia. No gun for you.

Oh wait, we've had ex-soldiers go crazy too. It was a thought.
 
2012-12-20 11:37:26 AM  

stevarooni: :o| Your knowledge of the events of that night are fascinating! Did you watch it on YouTube, or did the Psychic Network provide you with the answers your sought?


Quit justifying gun violence.
 
2012-12-20 11:38:33 AM  

A Shambling Mound: Belligerent dickheads getting shot for being belligerent dickheads is not something I feel like legislating against.


This.

Also, note that the statistics cited by the Progg crowd typically neglects to mention the number of gun deaths that are suicides, and the ones that are the product of gangs and drugs.

As though everyone is supposed to lose the basic human right of self-defense because a bunch of gang bangers and drug dealers settle their turf wars with guns.
 
2012-12-20 11:39:08 AM  

biyaaatci: What I want to know is, whatever happened to the "Pizza! Pizza!" gimmick?


That's been gone for a long time. When I managed a Little Caesar's as a nubile 19 year old back in the 90s, the catchphrase was "where bigger is better." The obnoxious comments we got on the phone because we were REQUIRED to say that every time we answered were overwhelming.

I love how so many people are fine with a citizen shooting some unarmed guy, but when a cop does it all hell breaks loose. I am as opposed to police brutality as anyone; I just find it an interesting juxtaposition.
 
2012-12-20 11:39:30 AM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.


Your right CCW permit holders do commit crimes, albeit at a much lower rate than the rest of the population but don't let that stop your rant.
 
2012-12-20 11:40:14 AM  
Do we have to go back through the Farkives to find the threads about when these laws first passed so those of us who said this is exactly what would happen and got shouted down by tiny-dicked morans with a Rambo fantasy and a spittle-flecked monitor can say "I told you so"?
 
2012-12-20 11:40:31 AM  

stevarooni: Eh, it's the misdemeanor part with which I have a problem. Otherwise I agree, convictions for violent stuffs prove that someone is incapable of doing well in society...NO GUN FOR YOU!


Now we have some common ground. My belief is if there is ANY question as to how responsible someone will be with a firearm then the default position should be not to allow them to acquire one. That is sadly very much not the current situation.

I don't want guns banned. I want idiots and those with violent tendencies banned from owning guns.
There should also be RIGOROUS training required.
 
2012-12-20 11:40:47 AM  

here to help: stevarooni: What if Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, beating his head against the backdrop of the sidewalk (Mr. Zimmerman's claim)? Is that a typical beatdown in your part of the world? "Unarmed" does not mean "Incapable of deadly force".

The cops were already on their way. He should have dropped it at that. You pick a fight, stalk someone in the middle of the night... expect a beatdown. It's called common sense. And yes where I come from you f*ck around you get knocked the f*ck out. That's why you don't play cowboy if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
Seriously what Zimmerman got was mild.


Zimmerman was the cowboy...and Trayvon was the Indian?
 
2012-12-20 11:41:39 AM  

Incog_Neeto: Your right CCW permit holders do commit crimes, albeit at a much lower rate than the rest of the population but don't let that stop your rant.


So put some effort in screening out the troublemakers. That's all I'm asking.
 
2012-12-20 11:42:52 AM  

tricycleracer:
This is why the law is bullshiat.

1.  Talk shiat to someone.
2.  They walk towards you.
3.  Shoot them.


Unfortunately, that seems to be what it's become. The original intent was to shield people from prosecution when they were forced into a confrontation and had to defend themselves, but it seems to be used far more by the sort of people who provoke or escalate confrontations and then shoot in order to avoid the ass-kicking their behavior has earned them.
 
2012-12-20 11:43:08 AM  

Dull Cow Eyes: what some people in Florida must think:

Stand Your Ground = if you're standing on the ground, just go ahead and shoot


It makes you wonder. Glad to see they charged the guy.


here to help: Phinn: You are clair-f*ucking-voyant!

This is amazing. Based on 80 lines of text, you just F*CKING KNOW EXACTLY what happened.

Get to the circus or something, dude. NASA. The Pentagon. They could use someone with your kind of super-powers.

I have seen lots of fights. 99% of them could have been avoided by one party just not taking things to the next level even if the other party was being a dick.


And when carrying a gun its your job to do everything possible to keep it from escalating.
 
2012-12-20 11:43:19 AM  

Arkanaut: damndirtyape: Pocket Ninja: He was standing his ground, subby, standing his ground like you only wish you had the courage to do. Like you wish you had the courage to do. But, no. They invade your space, and you fall back. They cut in line, and you fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther! And we will make them pay for what they have done.

You broke your little plastic thing that keeps the box top out of the cheese.

I think that's considered a war crime in some places.


I miss the dough balls you used to get. Most places seem to have cheaped out of including those.
 
2012-12-20 11:43:47 AM  

occamswrist: Zimmerman was the cowboy...and Trayvon was the Indian?


Well he got slaughtered while minding his own business so I guess that's apt.
 
2012-12-20 11:43:50 AM  

here to help: I have seen lots of fights. 99% of them could have been avoided by one party just not taking things to the next level even if the other party was being a dick.


Nice dodge, tough guy. You like to get vague when it suits you.

See, out here in reality, there is a point when "taking things to the next level" constitutes posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

When you cross that line, it's OK to kill you.
 
2012-12-20 11:46:01 AM  

here to help: tricycleracer: This is why the law is bullshiat.

1. Talk shiat to someone.
2. They walk towards you.
3. Shoot them.

Exactly. Just like Zimmerman asshole. I don't care if Trayvon was selling crack to babby's. He started a fight he couldn't finish. The worst that would have happened was he took a beatdown (which he deserved). Instead the kid is dead.


This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.
 
2012-12-20 11:46:02 AM  

Jacobin: Sometimes I think that having 7 billion people in the world is making things too crowded and making people just a little too cranky.


You'd think that is a lot, however if every single person on the planet stood together in one large group, it would only cover around 7 square miles of space.
 
2012-12-20 11:46:31 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: And when carrying a gun its your job to do everything possible to keep it from escalating.


Wrong.

I love how you Statists manage to invent bullsh*t ethical rules on the spot. Do you have an endless supply of them stored up your asses?
 
2012-12-20 11:46:48 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: And when carrying a gun its your job to do everything possible to keep it from escalating.


Indeed. Actually I think even without a weapon that should be everyone's default mode. What a world we would live in if everyone could just keep their lizard brains in check.

Phinn: Nice dodge, tough guy. You like to get vague when it suits you.

See, out here in reality, there is a point when "taking things to the next level" constitutes posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

When you cross that line, it's OK to kill you.


Well it's come to my attention you are just a pleasure troll so be gone with ye foul beast.
 
2012-12-20 11:47:03 AM  

here to help: Quit justifying gun violence.


Gun violence isn't inherently wrong. Often wrong, but just as homicide isn't always murder, violence isn't always the wrong answer.
 
2012-12-20 11:47:03 AM  

here to help: gun violence.


here to help: being a dick.


here to help: violent asshat.


here to help: Responsible gun owner. Nothing to see here.


here to help: 2nd amendment douchensteins...

Dinks.


here to help: asshole


here to help: freaking the hell out


here to help: idiot


here to help: you f*ck around you get knocked the f*ck out. .


here to help: idiots


f.kulfoto.com
 
2012-12-20 11:48:26 AM  

Phinn: here to help: I have seen lots of fights. 99% of them could have been avoided by one party just not taking things to the next level even if the other party was being a dick.

Nice dodge, tough guy. You like to get vague when it suits you.

See, out here in reality, there is a point when "taking things to the next level" constitutes posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

When you cross that line, it's OK to kill you.


Here's some baby ointment, you know, for your butthurt :)

Your turn to provide proof that this guy is not some paranoid freak who over-reacted. I love this game!
 
2012-12-20 11:49:56 AM  

Cold_Sassy: This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.


Is he? He's roaming around free? I'm not sure exactly how serious those charges are but they don't sound on the level with what should happen when you try to kill someone over pizza.

But that's not my point. My point is wingnuts will ignore or even champion this guy and that is unacceptable IMO.
 
2012-12-20 11:50:03 AM  

Cold_Sassy: This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon.


It's called "Stand Your Ground" for a reason.
 
2012-12-20 11:50:26 AM  

themasterdebater: Jacobin: Sometimes I think that having 7 billion people in the world is making things too crowded and making people just a little too cranky.

You'd think that is a lot, however if every single person on the planet stood together in one large group, it would only cover around 7 square miles of space.


This is a lie.  You know how many god damn fatties there are?  We're talking lots!
 
We'd cover at least 200 square miles, possibly cubic miles.
 
 
Anyway, shooter is a farking idiot who needs 20 years of jail time, before he shoots someone else.
 
2012-12-20 11:52:18 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: .


Meh. I've made my point. The extra saltiness is purely to keep things entertaining. This is, after all, Fark.
 
2012-12-20 11:53:50 AM  

here to help: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: .

Meh. I've made my point. The extra saltiness is purely to keep things entertaining. This is, after all, Fark.


Yes. Yes it is. Cue "Welcome to Fark"?
 
2012-12-20 11:54:04 AM  

here to help: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: .

Meh. I've made my point. The extra saltiness is purely to keep things entertaining. This is, after all, Fark.


I just liked the juxtaposition between the username and the abrasiveness of the posts, it made me giggle.
 
2012-12-20 11:54:50 AM  

here to help: My belief is if there is ANY question as to how responsible someone will be with a firearm then the default position should be not to allow them to acquire one. That is sadly very much not the current situation.


I would say that our common ground is very rocky. As the right to keep and bear arms is...well, a right, I believe that "shall issue" is the more correct approach. Find a reason and I'll back blocking someone from buying guns. A legally-competent (i.e. not adjudged incompetent) adult without a felony conviction should be assumed to be responsible.

here to help: There should also be RIGOROUS training required.


That's, again, a point upon which we shall differ. Who defines rigorous? What if Illinois puts all of its training facilities in Southern Illinois, open 4 PM-4:15 PM every 7th Thursday, 10 hours training required to obtain a gun. Hyperbole, yes, but that's just what happens when you subject people's rights to requirements that are, very often, subject to arbitrary abuse. Now when it comes to concealed carry...some level of (basic) training or testing wouldn't be bad, I suppose, but keeping it from being ONEROUS rather than just RIGOROUS takes care.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:26 AM  

Cold_Sassy:
This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.


Not entirely true, not in Florida anyway. We have no duty to retreat so long as we are in a place lawfully. Hence why it is called "stand your ground". As for instigation and escalation, yes you're correct there and why this guy is in trouble.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:48 AM  

Incog_Neeto: Your right CCW permit holders do commit crimes, albeit at a much lower rate than the rest of the population but don't let that stop your rant.


The sampling bias is this statement is staggering.
 
Criminals can't get CCWs so every CCW holder is law-abiding until the day they actual cross over into criminal behavior, thereby relinquishing their CCW permit.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:26 AM  
"An armed society is a polite society."
 
2012-12-20 11:57:17 AM  

damndirtyape: Cold_Sassy:
This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.

Not entirely true, not in Florida anyway. We have no duty to retreat so long as we are in a place lawfully. Hence why it is called "stand your ground". As for instigation and escalation, yes you're correct there and why this guy is in trouble.


True, but it wasn't "his" ground to begin with. It was the Pizza's ground.

/also, did he aim at the skittles???
 
2012-12-20 11:58:32 AM  

Arkanaut: "An armed society is a polite society waits patiently for their pizza no matter how long it takes and shoots anyone who doesn't."

 
2012-12-20 12:00:20 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I just liked the juxtaposition between the username and the abrasiveness of the posts, it made me giggle.


;-)

/here to help

stevarooni: As the right to keep and bear arms is...well, a right,


And many would say that that "right" is being completely misinterpreted and abused today. I doubt the writers of the constitution would be too thrilled it was being used to excuse the EXTREMELY poor actions and judgment of certain modern day citizens. Especially considering some modern guns outperform even the most powerful heavy artillery of the day.
 
2012-12-20 12:03:16 PM  

tricycleracer: Incog_Neeto: Your right CCW permit holders do commit crimes, albeit at a much lower rate than the rest of the population but don't let that stop your rant.

The sampling bias is this statement is staggering.

Criminals can't get CCWs so every CCW holder is law-abiding until the day they actual cross over into criminal behavior, thereby relinquishing their CCW permit.


That could be tested by checking Crimes committed by anyone who has ever had a CCW permit I suppose or by ignoring any crimes committed by the same people out of the general population hrm.
 
2012-12-20 12:03:43 PM  

swahnhennessy: It's called "Stand Your Ground" for a reason.


It's a terribly written law.  There's a reason Florida is the only state with its own Fark tag.
 
2012-12-20 12:04:01 PM  

A Shambling Mound: Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that maybe the guy who was complaining was belligerent and threatening?


I am hard pressed to think of any situation where you're in a pizza joint, a fight breaks out, and you need to shoot an unarmed man. I'm sure there must be one, and I'm sure this isn't it.

Any CCW permit holder who tries to defend this idiot should lose their permit.
 
2012-12-20 12:05:46 PM  

you have pee hands: [Stand Your Ground]'s a terribly written law.  There's a reason Florida is the only state with its own Fark tag.


Do you have some examples of its misuse? In the case of Zimmerman's 2nd Degree Murder trial, that defense has pretty well been refuted, if what he says happened, happened.
 
2012-12-20 12:07:43 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Your turn to provide proof that this guy is not some paranoid freak who over-reacted. I love this game!


I don't have to. To justify punishing someone, the goons calling themselves "the State" are required to disprove a claim of self-defense.

They still have to prove guilt, which (in self-defense cases) means disproving self-defense.

Self-defense is wholly lawful, not merely excusable or justifiable. Under life-threatening circumstances, we are as free to kill the threat as we are to walk down the street.

Maybe belligerent dickbags should be more polite. They'd get shot less often.

(Trayvon Martin, I'm looking at you ... or, I would, if you weren't already dead.)
 
2012-12-20 12:07:52 PM  
Stand Your Ground is legalized murder. Leave it to Florida to find a way to paint murder with an acceptable-sounding name. Stand Your Ground. LOL. The world would be a better place with more people getting mental help and less people "standing their ground."

What crime are you going to legalize and give a friendly name to next, Florida? How about a law called "Enjoy Adult Beverages While Driving" to legalize drunk driving. Or "Sex Without All The Red Tape" to legalize rape?
 
2012-12-20 12:09:26 PM  

Arkanaut: "An armed society is a polite society."


Just like Somalia! And Syria! And post invasion Iraq! And Afghanistan!
 
2012-12-20 12:09:28 PM  

here to help: And many would say that that "right" is being completely misinterpreted and abused today. I doubt the writers of the constitution would be too thrilled it was being used to excuse the EXTREMELY poor actions and judgment of certain modern day citizens. Especially considering some modern guns outperform even the most powerful heavy artillery of the day.


Please explain "misinterpreted". I don't understand what you mean.

As for abused...people who murder are and should be prosecuted. People who buy guns of the type and number that you don't like aren't.

I agree that the Founders wouldn't be thrilled at mass murder, but given the preface of the 2nd Amendment, many analysts seem to believe that the average citizen should have access to what the average soldier of the time has...in which case our rights are being infringed. Now they might be appalled at the state of warfare in general, but the idea that citizens can get their hands on firearms that are almost as capable as soldiers in a standing army...that's going to need a citation.
 
2012-12-20 12:11:39 PM  

Phinn: Charlie Chingas: Your turn to provide proof that this guy is not some paranoid freak who over-reacted. I love this game!

I don't have to. To justify punishing someone, the goons calling themselves "the State" are required to disprove a claim of self-defense.

They still have to prove guilt, which (in self-defense cases) means disproving self-defense.

Self-defense is wholly lawful, not merely excusable or justifiable. Under life-threatening circumstances, we are as free to kill the threat as we are to walk down the street.

Maybe belligerent dickbags should be more polite. They'd get shot less often.

(Trayvon Martin, I'm looking at you ... or, I would, if you weren't already dead.)


Of course you don't have to. But you expect everyone else to. Are you that legendary white knight I keep hearing about? Pick a fight, person fights back, you shoot person because you feel threatened. You know, I just got it. You're projecting! You're that angry white man who would pick a fight then feel justified in shooting someone because you felt threatened. I get it now.
 
2012-12-20 12:11:42 PM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.


Why didn't the guy that was about to get shot just call the police?
 
2012-12-20 12:11:50 PM  

stevarooni: you have pee hands: [Stand Your Ground]'s a terribly written law.  There's a reason Florida is the only state with its own Fark tag.

Do you have some examples of its misuse? In the case of Zimmerman's 2nd Degree Murder trial, that defense has pretty well been refuted, if what he says happened, happened.


Oh man!  I was totally wrong about Florida.  It's been used to excuse killings that aren't self defense in a whole bunch of states. Sorry, Florida.
 
2012-12-20 12:12:33 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: TFA:

Man shot at Florida pizza restaurant for complaining about service

Published December 20, 2012

FoxNews.com

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - A Tampa Bay area man accused of shooting and wounding another man during an argument at a pizza restaurant said his actions were justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

St. Petersburg police say 52-year-old Michael Jock was waiting in line at a Little Caesars on Sunday when another customer, 49-year-old Randall White, began complaining about the slow service. The men exchanged words, which turned into a shoving match.

The Tampa Bay Times reports that Jock pulled a revolver and shot White in the lower torso. The two struggled and White was shot a second time.

Jock, who has a concealed weapons permit, told officers he was justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force if they believe their lives are in danger.

The officers charged Jock with aggravated battery with a weapon and shooting within a building. He was later released on $20,000 bail.


There, now the rest of you don't have to click on foxnews.com.


God Bless you kind sir.
 
2012-12-20 12:13:14 PM  
Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training
 
2012-12-20 12:15:02 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training


It is your duty to always back down when confronted. Don't give lip just be subservient. This way no one will be injured.
 
2012-12-20 12:16:19 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Stand Your Ground is legalized murder. Leave it to Florida to find a way to paint murder with an acceptable-sounding name. Stand Your Ground. LOL. The world would be a better place with more people getting mental help and less people "standing their ground."

What crime are you going to legalize and give a friendly name to next, Florida? How about a law called "Enjoy Adult Beverages While Driving" to legalize drunk driving. Or "Sex Without All The Red Tape" to legalize rape?


Everything you've said is wrong. I have a feeling that's a common occurrence for you.

Under Florida law, you can only legitimately kill in self-defense when you reasonably believe someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

It used to be that the State, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that, in addition to the existential threat element, the sheep were ALSO required to show that they had retreated as far as they could.

All "Stand Your Ground" does is delete the second requirement -- retreating.

Self-defense is still only legitimate when you are reasonably in fear or your life (or serious injury).

But, sure, please continue to champion the rights of a belligerent dickbag to physically attack anyone who asks him to cork his hole.

You're probably used to cowering before those people anyway, so it's not surprising you'd do everything you can to defend them. Sort of like Stockholm Syndrome, only since you're not held hostage at the moment, it's actually more pathetic.
 
2012-12-20 12:16:49 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Stand Your Ground is legalized murder. Leave it to Florida to find a way to paint murder with an acceptable-sounding name. Stand Your Ground. LOL. The world would be a better place with more people getting mental help and less people "standing their ground."


If murder is illegal, only criminals will commit murder.
 
2012-12-20 12:17:05 PM  

stevarooni: Please explain "misinterpreted". I don't understand what you mean.


I mean many folks say that it was intended for the average citizen to have arms in case of a military threat against the nation as there was no standing army. Now the US has the most powerful army on the planet so that right is no longer needed. I'm not sure I agree as I'm not a constitutional scholar but it's a valid point.

My thinking is gun ownership should be a privilege like a drivers license. You abuse that privilege and it can be revoked. It works quite well in many countries.
 
2012-12-20 12:20:30 PM  

Phinn: Under Florida law, you can only legitimately kill in self-defense when you reasonably believe someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-20 12:20:37 PM  
Everything you've said is wrong. I have a feeling that's a common occurrence for you.

Just because you say it on the Internet does not make it true. Everything you've said so far is also wrong and severely opinionated.

Under Florida law, you can only legitimately kill in self-defense when you reasonably believe someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Still doesn't justify you starting a fight. Mind your own business if someone is complaining about something.

It used to be that the State, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that, in addition to the existential threat element, the sheep were ALSO required to show that they had retreated as far as they could.

You sound angry.

All "Stand Your Ground" does is delete the second requirement -- retreating.

You're probably used to cowering before those people anyway, so it's not surprising you'd do everything you can to defend them. Sort of like Stockholm Syndrome, only since you're not held hostage at the moment, it's actually more pathetic.

Again, projecting. Glad you have the internet to vent your menstra... I mean, frustrations...
 
2012-12-20 12:22:06 PM  

stevarooni: What if Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, beating his head against the backdrop of the sidewalk (Mr. Zimmerman's claim)? Is that a typical beatdown in your part of the world? "Unarmed" does not mean "Incapable of deadly force".


It goes both ways.   Any amount of beating up to and including killing Zimmerman was justified because, unlike Zimmerman, we know for a fact that Martin's life was in danger.  He's dead after all.
 
2012-12-20 12:22:14 PM  

here to help: My thinking is gun ownership should be a privilege like a drivers license. You abuse that privilege and it can be revoked. It works quite well in many countries.


There is a way to do that, ya know. It just isn't politically expedient.
 
2012-12-20 12:22:30 PM  

Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.


And THAT is exactly the problem with the law. All we have is his word for it that he believed he was about to die before he opened fire. Shouldn't we hold the users of deadly force to a higher standard if they're going to potentially kill people?

I think this is one of those cases where the preponderance of evidence must lie with the shooter, not the guy with holes in him.
 
2012-12-20 12:23:03 PM  

damndirtyape: Cold_Sassy:
This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.

Not entirely true, not in Florida anyway. We have no duty to retreat so long as we are in a place lawfully. Hence why it is called "stand your ground". As for instigation and escalation, yes you're correct there and why this guy is in trouble.


You know, you are right. In the state I am licensed in, they are trying to get the "Stand your ground" law changed, but for now you are still required to retreat if possible.

I hope it passes, because that part of the present law IS stupid.
 
2012-12-20 12:24:52 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Of course you don't have to. But you expect everyone else to. Are you that legendary white knight I keep hearing about? Pick a fight, person fights back, you shoot person because you feel threatened. You know, I just got it. You're projecting! You're that angry white man who would pick a fight then feel justified in shooting someone because you felt threatened. I get it now.


I'm only expecting people to explain how they know what they claim to know -- that the shooter was not in reasonable fear of his life.

You know, what with NOT BEING THERE, and all.

I wasn't, so I wouldn't attempt to prove or assert anything, one way or the other.

The only thing I can speak to is the law and ethics of self-defense.

Your self-serving scenario -- "pick a fight, person fights back" -- covers a lot of territory. It glosses over the central question -- who posed a threat of death or injury?

For whatever reason, you just don't like it when threatening people get kill'd.

P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.
 
2012-12-20 12:25:57 PM  

stevarooni: here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.

Hyperbolic post is hyperbolic.

BUT...no reasonable gun rights proponent would suggest that "NO licensed gun owner would EVER" anything. Statistically, licensed concealed carriers perform fewer crime.


So we should let them off the hook when they do? "Look, you screwed up this time, but since the rest of the gun owners are responsible, we're going to let you slide this time. Just be more careful next time, Tex."

Gun owners are not the problem, but just because most are good doesn't mean they all are and therefore this should not be scrutinized.
 
2012-12-20 12:29:08 PM  

GoldSpider: There is a way to do that, ya know. It just isn't politically expedient.


And that's why the courts or the politicians need to nut up and freaking do something and not let the mouth breathers get in the way of saving lives. Sadly this is one of the major drawbacks of living in a democracy. You can't do much about the idiots. Especially when they block funding for education which in theory would help reduce the idiot population.
 
2012-12-20 12:30:11 PM  

here to help: stevarooni: Please explain "misinterpreted". I don't understand what you mean.

I mean many folks say that it was intended for the average citizen to have arms in case of a military threat against the nation as there was no standing army. Now the US has the most powerful army on the planet so that right is no longer needed.



Where is our military right now?
 
2012-12-20 12:30:51 PM  

Phinn: Charlie Chingas: Of course you don't have to. But you expect everyone else to. Are you that legendary white knight I keep hearing about? Pick a fight, person fights back, you shoot person because you feel threatened. You know, I just got it. You're projecting! You're that angry white man who would pick a fight then feel justified in shooting someone because you felt threatened. I get it now.

I'm only expecting people to explain how they know what they claim to know -- that the shooter was not in reasonable fear of his life.

You know, what with NOT BEING THERE, and all.

I wasn't, so I wouldn't attempt to prove or assert anything, one way or the other.

The only thing I can speak to is the law and ethics of self-defense.

Your self-serving scenario -- "pick a fight, person fights back" -- covers a lot of territory. It glosses over the central question -- who posed a threat of death or injury?

For whatever reason, you just don't like it when threatening people get kill'd.

P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.


to ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others.

You sound angry. Quick to come to this guy's defense (the shooter), as appose to the guy with extra holes. You come off as angry. I get the impression you're that guy who would start a fight, then shoot someone because you felt "threatened". You're very adamant with your argument. Plus, this is Fark. Calm. The. Fark. Down.
 
2012-12-20 12:30:56 PM  

JerkStore: And THAT is exactly the problem with the law. All we have is his word for it that he believed he was about to die before he opened fire. Shouldn't we hold the users of deadly force to a higher standard if they're going to potentially kill people?

I think this is one of those cases where the preponderance of evidence must lie with the shooter, not the guy with holes in him.


All wrong.

I have no idea about this pizza shooting, but I assume there were other people there. So, it's not a matter of "his word." There could have been 20 witnesses, for all we know, including the guy that got shot, who apparently lived.

Self-defense is wholly legal and ethical. It's more than merely justified or excusable. It's the first, most basic human right. It's pretty much the origin of "rights" altogether.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:16 PM  

here to help: GoldSpider: There is a way to do that, ya know. It just isn't politically expedient.

And that's why the courts or the politicians need to nut up and freaking do something and not let the mouth breathers get in the way of saving lives. Sadly this is one of the major drawbacks of living in a democracy. You can't do much about the idiots. Especially when they block funding for education which in theory would help reduce the idiot population.


Luckily we don't live in a democracy.

Republic is what we have. A slight limit on the tyranny of the majority.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:52 PM  

JerkStore: stevarooni: here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.

Hyperbolic post is hyperbolic.

BUT...no reasonable gun rights proponent would suggest that "NO licensed gun owner would EVER" anything. Statistically, licensed concealed carriers perform fewer crime.

So we should let them off the hook when they do? "Look, you screwed up this time, but since the rest of the gun owners are responsible, we're going to let you slide this time. Just be more careful next time, Tex."

Gun owners are not the problem, but just because most are good doesn't mean they all are and therefore this should not be scrutinized.


Zimmerman is a gun owner.  Hes not a problem?  Hes a lunatic with a farkin' gun.
 
2012-12-20 12:35:27 PM  

Charlie Chingas: P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.

to ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others.

You sound angry.

Irony, thy name is Charlie Chingas.

Charlie Chingas: Quick to come to this guy's defense (the shooter), as appose to the guy with extra holes. You come off as angry. I get the impression you're that guy who would start a fight, then shoot someone because you felt "threatened". You're very adamant with your argument. Plus, this is Fark. Calm. The. Fark. Down.

I have no idea if this was legitimate self-defense or not. But then again, neither does ANYONE posting here.

You have no trouble with the people here who instantly presumed guilt. But you get all shirty and frothy when I point out the laws of self-defense and disclaim anything remotely constituting knowledge of the facts of this case.

But thanks for the psychoanalysis. I'll return the favor -- you come across as a control freak, as well as a slave to your own political biases.

 
2012-12-20 12:36:31 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Where is our military right now?


I'm pretty sure if there was an invasion of the continental US there are enough military resources to thwart it... if that is what you were implying. Besides I don't the Jed and Cletus are going to be able to do much to stop a modern army.
 
2012-12-20 12:37:07 PM  
Look... There are a lot of gun owners. Sure there's this guy. And the guy who gave his six year old a gun to bring to school for protection. Hospital in Alabama. Guy who shot the cops in... Was in Kansas? doesnt matter. And yes that's all I think of since last Fridays massacre but really... C'mon friends... Why even THINk about new restrictions, laws or bans. It so very mean to the vast majority of law abiding citizens. Gun violence hardly ever happens at all.
 
2012-12-20 12:38:42 PM  

Phinn: here to help: How many more kids are you willing to let get massacred before admitting that you are WRONG!

How many people are you willing to be raped, robbed, beaten and killed because they were prohibited from using the tool they needed to defend themselves?

Why are you so in favor of allowing rapists, robbers and batterers to commit their crimes with impunity?


I'd like to see some numbers on how many crimes are thwarted by gun carrying citizens. Be interesting to compare it to the number of people with holes in them from guys doing stupid stuff with guns.
 
2012-12-20 12:39:01 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Gun violence hardly ever happens at all.


Outside of suicides, and gang bangers/drug dealers killing each other, you're right.
 
2012-12-20 12:39:39 PM  

Phinn: Charlie Chingas: P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.

to ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others.

You sound angry.

Irony, thy name is Charlie Chingas.

Charlie Chingas: Quick to come to this guy's defense (the shooter), as appose to the guy with extra holes. You come off as angry. I get the impression you're that guy who would start a fight, then shoot someone because you felt "threatened". You're very adamant with your argument. Plus, this is Fark. Calm. The. Fark. Down.

I have no idea if this was legitimate self-defense or not. But then again, neither does ANYONE posting here.

You have no trouble with the people here who instantly presumed guilt. But you get all shirty and frothy when I point out the laws of self-defense and disclaim anything remotely constituting knowledge of the facts of this case.

But thanks for the psychoanalysis. I'll return the favor -- you come across as a control freak, as well as a slave to your own political biases.


You've crossed the line! I DO NOT! I REPEAT, I DO NOT GET FROTHY (unless it's Friday night). I also have no idea whether this was self-defense or not, but you come off as an ass-hat when someone has an opinion on this situation. Blah, blah law. You get butt-hurt when someone states something you don't agree with.

And you're welcome. I usually charge by the hour, but for you, it's free!
 
2012-12-20 12:40:54 PM  

Phinn: I have no idea about this pizza shooting, but I assume there were other people there. So, it's not a matter of "his word." There could have been 20 witnesses, for all we know, including the guy that got shot, who apparently lived.


"We determined it did not reach a level where deadly force was required," [Police spokesman] Puetz said.
 
2012-12-20 12:41:21 PM  

Phinn: Charlie Chingas: Your turn to provide proof that this guy is not some paranoid freak who over-reacted. I love this game!

I don't have to. To justify punishing someone, the goons calling themselves "the State" are required to disprove a claim of self-defense.

They still have to prove guilt, which (in self-defense cases) means disproving self-defense.

Self-defense is wholly lawful, not merely excusable or justifiable. Under life-threatening circumstances, we are as free to kill the threat as we are to walk down the street.

Maybe belligerent dickbags should be more polite. They'd get shot less often.

(Trayvon Martin, I'm looking at you ... or, I would, if you weren't already dead.)


You're awesome, dude.

Lots of people troll, but you're the first I've seen to showcase his catches in his profile.
 
2012-12-20 12:42:07 PM  

elffster: Zimmerman is a gun owner.  Hes not a problem?  Hes a lunatic with a farkin' gun.


Regardless of his (yet-to-be-determined) guilt or innocence, his status as a gun owner doesn't make "gun owners" as a class a problem. Just as the recent rash of Chinese attacks don't make "cleaver owners" as a class a problem. Lunatics with guns? Yeah, they're a problem! They have no legal right to own guns if they're adjudged, by the law, to be lunatics.
 
2012-12-20 12:44:20 PM  

Phinn: here to help: How many more kids are you willing to let get massacred before admitting that you are WRONG!

How many people are you willing to be raped, robbed, beaten and killed because they were prohibited from using the tool they needed to defend themselves?

Why are you so in favor of allowing rapists, robbers and batterers to commit their crimes with impunity?


Great point! In England where there are hardly any citizens with guns woman are getting raped so often they're considering decriminalizing it. They just can't keep up! It's rape everywhere because no one can shoot the rapist.
 
2012-12-20 12:44:21 PM  

Charlie Chingas: ... you come off as an ass-hat when someone has an opinion on this situation. Blah, blah law. You get butt-hurt when someone states something you don't agree with.


You're doing exactly that, right now.

Reading your posts is like watching someone brag about how he never brags. Or how much he hates intolerant people.

Your posts are an impacted, self-negating abscess of stupid.
 
2012-12-20 12:46:38 PM  

elffster: We'd cover at least 200 square miles, possibly cubic miles.


How many hectares is that?

This is relative to the debate at hand.
 
2012-12-20 12:46:48 PM  

here to help: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: .

Meh. I've made my point. The extra saltiness is purely to keep things entertaining. This is, after all, Fark.


Just thought I'd say that I can't see where you were wrong in any of the posts.
 
2012-12-20 12:47:58 PM  

stevarooni: Lunatics with guns? Yeah, they're a problem! They have no legal right to own guns if they're adjudged, by the law, to be lunatics.


"Intellectually disabled person" please.
 
2012-12-20 12:49:54 PM  

Phinn: Charlie Chingas: ... you come off as an ass-hat when someone has an opinion on this situation. Blah, blah law. You get butt-hurt when someone states something you don't agree with.

You're doing exactly that, right now.

Reading your posts is like watching someone brag about how he never brags. Or how much he hates intolerant people.

Your posts are an impacted, self-negating abscess of stupid.


So much this! I think I need to lay off the coffee for awhile...

Exactly. As someone pointed out, you profile your "trolling" on your profile. Secretly, I like you :)
 
2012-12-20 12:50:42 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Phinn: Charlie Chingas: Of course you don't have to. But you expect everyone else to. Are you that legendary white knight I keep hearing about? Pick a fight, person fights back, you shoot person because you feel threatened. You know, I just got it. You're projecting! You're that angry white man who would pick a fight then feel justified in shooting someone because you felt threatened. I get it now.

I'm only expecting people to explain how they know what they claim to know -- that the shooter was not in reasonable fear of his life.

You know, what with NOT BEING THERE, and all.

I wasn't, so I wouldn't attempt to prove or assert anything, one way or the other.

The only thing I can speak to is the law and ethics of self-defense.

Your self-serving scenario -- "pick a fight, person fights back" -- covers a lot of territory. It glosses over the central question -- who posed a threat of death or injury?

For whatever reason, you just don't like it when threatening people get kill'd.

P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.

to ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others.

You sound angry. Quick to come to this guy's defense (the shooter), as appose to the guy with extra holes. You come off as angry. I get the impression you're that guy who would start a fight, then shoot someone because you felt "threatened". You're very adamant with your argument. Plus, this is Fark. Calm. The. Fark. Down.


They think they are in their car.
 
2012-12-20 12:51:19 PM  

Phinn: Waxing_Chewbacca: Gun violence hardly ever happens at all.

Outside of suicides, and gang bangers/drug dealers killing each other, you're right.


You have a TV, right sport?
 
2012-12-20 12:51:22 PM  
St. Petersburg police say 52-year-old Michael Jock was waiting in line at a Little Caesars on Sunday when another customer, 49-year-old Randall White, began complaining about the slow service. The men exchanged words, which turned into a shoving match.

Well, there you go. It's always the dumb Jock.
 
2012-12-20 12:52:46 PM  

here to help: StoPPeRmobile: Where is our military right now?

I'm pretty sure if there was an invasion of the continental US there are enough military resources to thwart it... if that is what you were implying. Besides I don't the Jed and Cletus are going to be able to do much to stop a modern army.


You're sure? Stop the farking presses. We should just consult you on matters of war and defense.
 
2012-12-20 12:52:49 PM  

hiker9999: St. Petersburg police say 52-year-old Michael Jock was waiting in line at a Little Caesars on Sunday when another customer, 49-year-old Randall White, began complaining about the slow service. The men exchanged words, which turned into a shoving match.

 
Well, there you go. It's always the dumb Jock.
 
It's the fault of White, man.
 
2012-12-20 12:55:39 PM  
This thread is slowing down. Oh! I see why! Another link for another shooting just went green. This one over a paintball game.
 
2012-12-20 12:56:58 PM  

Dimensio: For what reason was the shooter charged with a crime? I have been assured that Florida's "stand your ground" statute allows shooters to escape any legal charges simply by claiming to have "felt threatened".


And of course there's no way that the endless media repetition of that idea has anything to do with people using deadly force when they should not.
 
2012-12-20 12:59:27 PM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.


Does every alcohol driver have blood on their hands from the drunk driver that killed one of my friends?
 
2012-12-20 12:59:55 PM  

themasterdebater: Jacobin: Sometimes I think that having 7 billion people in the world is making things too crowded and making people just a little too cranky.

You'd think that is a lot, however if every single person on the planet stood together in one large group, it would only cover around 7 square miles of space.


Assume average person takes up 3' x 2' = 6 sqft.

7E9 people in world.

6sqft x 7E9 ppl = 4.2E10 sqft of people

3.6E-8 sqmi / sqft

So...

4.2E10 sqft x 3.6E-8 sqmi/sqft = 1.5E3 sqmi.

That's 1500 square miles of people, not 7.
 
2012-12-20 01:00:04 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Just thought I'd say that I can't see where you were wrong in any of the posts.


Good to hear. I do try make sense even if I'm being an arse about it. ;-)
 
2012-12-20 01:00:50 PM  

Captain Darling: Dimensio: For what reason was the shooter charged with a crime? I have been assured that Florida's "stand your ground" statute allows shooters to escape any legal charges simply by claiming to have "felt threatened".

And of course there's no way that the endless media repetition of that idea has anything to do with people using deadly force when they should not.


I have lived in Florida for quite a while, don't watch TV, and haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

But if that is true then TV must be the problem.

Ban TV!

You don't have a need for TV nor do you have a right to TV. So, in the interest of the safety for society, ban TV!
 
2012-12-20 01:01:41 PM  

here to help: Waxing_Chewbacca: Just thought I'd say that I can't see where you were wrong in any of the posts.

Good to hear. I do try make sense even if I'm being an arse about it. ;-)


Don't look now but there's a newer thread about a guy who shot a 16-year old kid over paintball. Killed him. God Bless the USA
 
2012-12-20 01:03:48 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: You're sure? Stop the farking presses. We should just consult you on matters of war and defense.


Yeah... you keep believing the backyard Rambos are gonna save your ass.

manimal2878: Does every alcohol driver have blood on their hands from the drunk driver that killed one of my friends?


I'd say anybody who aggressively endorses drunk driving to the point of trying to make it illegal to drive sober would. But nobody does that. You know why? Because it's f*cking CRAZY.
 
2012-12-20 01:04:27 PM  
I don't think that law applies here. At least, I hope it doesn't. Most of us have been in line and someone else annoys us. I have been known to ask people to shut up (like the guy at Burger King who is OUTRAGED because he specifically said 'light mayo' on his chicken). First, I size them up and make sure I'd stand a pretty good chance of either kicking their ass or outrunning them - then if I feel all comfy I'll speak up. But let's say it's a 6' 4" giant dude that looks like he's on roid-rage. I would stare at my shoes and hope he gets a free sandwich and move on with my life. After he leaves I might make a snarky comment for a cheap giggle from my wife. BUT, now let's say I have a gun and a law that says I can stand my ground. Mr. Roid-Rager just caught me in a bad mood. I spout off, he gets pissed and shoves me - I pull my gun and stand my ground. I call bullshiat. You can't walk around and shoot everyone that pisses you off. Carrying a gun does not give you the right to talk trash and then back it up with murder if the argument doesn't go your way.
 
2012-12-20 01:06:05 PM  

manimal2878: here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.

Does every alcohol driver have blood on their hands from the drunk driver that killed one of my friends?


Yes and all the other drivers too. It only makes sense to blame the weapon.
 
2012-12-20 01:07:46 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: here to help: Waxing_Chewbacca: Just thought I'd say that I can't see where you were wrong in any of the posts.

Good to hear. I do try make sense even if I'm being an arse about it. ;-)

Don't look now but there's a newer thread about a guy who shot a 16-year old kid over paintball. Killed him. God Bless the USA


Yeah, I saw that but I should probably get some stuff done around here. Meh, maybe I could stop in for a couple poop flings. ;-p
 
2012-12-20 01:08:14 PM  

here to help: StoPPeRmobile: You're sure? Stop the farking presses. We should just consult you on matters of war and defense.

Yeah... you keep believing the backyard Rambos are gonna save your ass.


Do you always project like this? It's pretty telling.

Nope no one will save my ass or yours. Only the rich and powerful as God intended.
 
2012-12-20 01:08:47 PM  

here to help: Waxing_Chewbacca: here to help: Waxing_Chewbacca: Just thought I'd say that I can't see where you were wrong in any of the posts.

Good to hear. I do try make sense even if I'm being an arse about it. ;-)

Don't look now but there's a newer thread about a guy who shot a 16-year old kid over paintball. Killed him. God Bless the USA

Yeah, I saw that but I should probably get some stuff done around here. Meh, maybe I could stop in for a couple poop flings. ;-p


Got my mit!
 
2012-12-20 01:10:25 PM  

here to help: StoPPeRmobile: You're sure? Stop the farking presses. We should just consult you on matters of war and defense.

Yeah... you keep believing the backyard Rambos are gonna save your ass.

manimal2878: Does every alcohol driver have blood on their hands from the drunk driver that killed one of my friends?

I'd say anybody who aggressively endorses drunk driving to the point of trying to make it illegal to drive sober would. But nobody does that. You know why? Because it's f*cking CRAZY.


Nobody endorses shooting children either.
 
2012-12-20 01:10:45 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Do you always project like this? It's pretty telling.


What the hell are you talking about? Or are you Phinn's alt?
 
2012-12-20 01:11:38 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: A Shambling Mound: Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that maybe the guy who was complaining was belligerent and threatening?

I am hard pressed to think of any situation where you're in a pizza joint, a fight breaks out, and you need to shoot an unarmed man. I'm sure there must be one, and I'm sure this isn't it.

Any CCW permit holder who tries to defend this idiot should lose their permit.


I clearly wasn't defending the shooter so I hope you aren't implying that I was. I was simply saying that to assume there is nothing more to this than some guy shooting another guy for no reason whatsoever is exactly that: an assumption.

I will state for the record that I think assaulting someone with a gun is a perfectly good reason to get shot, however. Receiving injury (however disproportionate) is a risk you choose to take when you decide attempting to dispense injury is a good idea.
 
2012-12-20 01:12:56 PM  
My previous post would make more sense if I had said "assaulting someone carrying a gun" as opposed to "assaulting someone with a gun".
 
2012-12-20 01:13:42 PM  

manimal2878: Nobody endorses shooting children either.


No, the drunk driving equivalent of that to what I was saying would be endorsing people get drunk then actively try to run people over. The whole trying to arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects would be the equivalent to trying to get everyone to drive drunk.
 
2012-12-20 01:26:40 PM  

here to help: manimal2878: Nobody endorses shooting children either.

No, the drunk driving equivalent of that to what I was saying would be endorsing people get drunk then actively try to run people over. The whole trying to arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects would be the equivalent to trying to get everyone to drive drunk.


So disarming every citizen is like endorsing people to drive sober and not actively try to run people over, despite emotional defects?

That makes sense.
 
2012-12-20 01:27:42 PM  

here to help: manimal2878: Nobody endorses shooting children either.

No, the drunk driving equivalent of that to what I was saying would be endorsing people get drunk then actively try to run people over. The whole trying to arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects would be the equivalent to trying to get everyone to drive drunk.


No, it wouldn't. Not even a little bit. You'll have to find another equivalent. Preferably one that is actually equivalent.

Before you say something (else) astonishingly stupid in reply, bear in mind that I agree with your basic assertion that arming every single person in the US is a terrifically bad idea.
 
2012-12-20 01:27:54 PM  
The last person I'd want wandering around the community with a gun in their possession is a person who feels so threatened by other people and so anxious day-to-day that they feel the need to arm themselves.

That's who I want carrying a gun: An anxious scared person with an over-inflated sense of their self-importance.
 
2012-12-20 01:28:35 PM  

here to help: manimal2878: Nobody endorses shooting children either.

No, the drunk driving equivalent of that to what I was saying would be endorsing people get drunk then actively try to run people over. The whole trying to arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects would be the equivalent to trying to get everyone to drive drunk.


I have seen exactly ZERO people say that they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects"... maybe you can cite someone who has actually said that?
 
2012-12-20 01:31:26 PM  

ansius: The last person I'd want wandering around the community with a gun in their possession is a person who feels so threatened by other people and so anxious day-to-day that they feel the need to arm themselves.

That's who I want carrying a gun: An anxious scared person with an over-inflated sense of their self-importance.


Hey now, no need to drag police departments into this.
 
2012-12-20 01:32:55 PM  

Cold_Sassy: damndirtyape: Cold_Sassy:
This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.

Not entirely true, not in Florida anyway. We have no duty to retreat so long as we are in a place lawfully. Hence why it is called "stand your ground". As for instigation and escalation, yes you're correct there and why this guy is in trouble.

You know, you are right. In the state I am licensed in, they are trying to get the "Stand your ground" law changed, but for now you are still required to retreat if possible.

I hope it passes, because that part of the present law IS stupid.


That's where I find myself in a gray area. I don't want to see the law changed because I don't believe I should have to retreat. Chances are I personally would, but I don't want it to be the thin line between me in an unfortunate situation where I had to take a life and PMIA prison. But, and the crux of the issue is, I don't want it abused and considered a get out of jail free card for unmitigated gunfights in the alleys. I suppose if I had a solution, I'd be famous and it'd be in place.
 
2012-12-20 01:33:03 PM  

here to help: No, the drunk driving equivalent of that to what I was saying would be endorsing people get drunk then actively try to run people over. The whole trying to arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects would be the equivalent to trying to get everyone to drive drunk.


Actually the analogy to DUI holds up, because while we've taken some measures to curb it we mostly rely on cars being a lot safer to protect us from drunks. Bars still serve drunk-ass people, and we as a culture still let our sh*t-housed friends drive home. So we've "armed ourselves" with airbags and crumple zones and crash bars in our doors.

And like with DUI, until our culture becomes less obsessed with guns and/or drinking and then driving (we do hate public transport, after all) then the problem won't ever really go away.
 
2012-12-20 01:34:19 PM  

A Shambling Mound: I will state for the record that I think assaulting someone [carrying] a gun is a perfectly good reason to get shot, however. Receiving injury (however disproportionate) is a risk you choose to take when you decide attempting to dispense injury is a good idea.


As long as you never have to put those words into practice, fine, but disproportionate use of force will get you charged with manslaughter or worse if you shoot someone for simple assault. If you think they're going to kill you (6 1/2 foot pro wrestler vs. 4 1/2 foot granny with a CCW, or if the guy's cracked the back of your favorite head against a barroom wall and asks, "Have you paid your dues, Jack?"), you're justified. But meeting non-deadly force with deadly force is a quick trip to jail en route to prison.
 
2012-12-20 01:34:46 PM  

GanjSmokr: I have seen exactly ZERO people say that they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects"... maybe you can cite someone who has actually said that?


That's what the NRA derpers want. They just have very different standards for what constitutes a potentially dangerous mental health issue. Probably because they'd lose all those sweet membership fees.
 
2012-12-20 01:36:12 PM  

ansius: The last person I'd want wandering around the community with a gun in their possession is a person who feels so threatened by other people and so anxious day-to-day that they feel the need to arm themselves..


Disarming the police would be...interesting. I don't think it'll fly, though, Ansius.
 
2012-12-20 01:37:17 PM  

here to help: That's what the NRA derpers want. They just have very different standards for what constitutes a potentially dangerous mental health issue. Probably because they'd lose all those sweet membership fees.


Wow, that's some kind o' terrible logic. NRA has different standards for debilitating mental illness, therefore the NRA wants to arm all the crazies they can? Sheesh.
 
2012-12-20 01:37:40 PM  

Arkanaut: "An armed society is a polite society."


If that were true, the U.S. would be one of the politest nations on the planet, and we very obviously are not.
 
2012-12-20 01:39:42 PM  

stevarooni: Wow, that's some kind o' terrible logic. NRA has different standards for debilitating mental illness, therefore the NRA wants to arm all the crazies they can? Sheesh.


You know what I meant but just in case I'll spell it out for you.

They want every citizen to be armed but don't want proper background checks. This means the mentally unstable would be able to have access to firearms even more easily than they do now.
 
2012-12-20 01:42:12 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Tatterdemalian: Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training

It is your duty to always back down when confronted. Don't give lip just be subservient. This way no one will be injured.


It isn't "subservient" to walk away (or better yet avoid in the first place) a confrontation with a belligerent fool. It's "smart."
 
2012-12-20 01:43:25 PM  

ansius: The last person I'd want wandering around the community with a gun in their possession is a person who feels so threatened by other people and so anxious day-to-day that they feel the need to arm themselves.

That's who I want carrying a gun: An anxious scared person with an over-inflated sense of their self-importance.


Hey that sounds like cops, plus the have armor that civilians can't get. So, you get what you want. Yay you.
 
2012-12-20 01:46:05 PM  

here to help: They want every citizen to be armed but don't want proper background checks. This means the mentally unstable would be able to have access to firearms even more easily than they do now.


Define "proper background checks". Not adjudicated to be mentally incompetent? Already part of the NICS check. Not a felon? Check. What more would you prefer? That anyone who attends therapy be unable to obtain firearms?
 
2012-12-20 01:46:33 PM  

Raoul Eaton: StoPPeRmobile: Tatterdemalian: Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training

It is your duty to always back down when confronted. Don't give lip just be subservient. This way no one will be injured.

It isn't "subservient" to walk away (or better yet avoid in the first place) a confrontation with a belligerent fool. It's "smart."


If that makes you feel better. As long as you comply.
 
2012-12-20 01:47:30 PM  

stevarooni: here to help: They want every citizen to be armed but don't want proper background checks. This means the mentally unstable would be able to have access to firearms even more easily than they do now.

Define "proper background checks". Not adjudicated to be mentally incompetent? Already part of the NICS check. Not a felon? Check. What more would you prefer? That anyone who attends therapy be unable to obtain firearms?


Yep. They should add anyone in a relationship to the list if they want a real witchhunt.
 
2012-12-20 01:50:24 PM  

here to help: GanjSmokr: I have seen exactly ZERO people say that they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects"... maybe you can cite someone who has actually said that?

That's what the NRA derpers want. They just have very different standards for what constitutes a potentially dangerous mental health issue. Probably because they'd lose all those sweet membership fees.


I'm sure you could provide a link to someone actually saying this then? You know, someone saying they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects" like you claim they want to?

If you can't provide a link to someone actually saying that, I'll understand.
 
2012-12-20 01:51:02 PM  

stevarooni: Define "proper background checks". Not adjudicated to be mentally incompetent? Already part of the NICS check. Not a felon? Check. What more would you prefer? That anyone who attends therapy be unable to obtain firearms?


You pay a fee to go through proper and extensive training. The trainers must be able to identify people with issues. If any red flags are raised... NO GUN FOR YOU!

And I don't mean Jack Yokel of Unionjacklivefreeordiesville with a monetary interest in hustling as many licenses through as possible. I mean real pros intent on doing a good job to keep guns out of the hands of whackadoodles.

Looks like the Obamster and Uncle Joe are stepping up to the plate on this so hopefully things can finally start getting better.
 
2012-12-20 01:52:17 PM  

GanjSmokr: I'm sure you could provide a link to someone actually saying this then? You know, someone saying they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects" like you claim they want to?

If you can't provide a link to someone actually saying that, I'll understand.


It gets stated here all the time and elsewhere. Do your own homework. I don't play the citation troll game.
 
2012-12-20 01:54:51 PM  

here to help: You pay a fee to go through proper and extensive training. The trainers must be able to identify people with issues. If any red flags are raised... NO GUN FOR YOU!


No chance on that being abused. "He was a menace to all of us!" "Because he had a 'Don't tread on me' bumper sticker?" "It's better for all of us, sir, that he never be allowed near a gun. This is my judgment, and I'm sticking to it." "Funny that only Republicans have ever passed your course, isn't it?"

Uncle Joe? :D That's an appropriate name, I suppose. So will we split Berlin, this time, or just give the whole thing to 'em?
 
2012-12-20 01:55:46 PM  

here to help: GanjSmokr: I'm sure you could provide a link to someone actually saying this then? You know, someone saying they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects" like you claim they want to?

If you can't provide a link to someone actually saying that, I'll understand.

It gets stated here all the time and elsewhere. Do your own homework. I don't play the citation troll game.


If it's stated here and elsewhere "all the time" then you should be able to find a citation easily. As it is, you play the quote-things-I-can't-prove-anyone-actually-said troll game, so you won't be able to find those quotes.

Game on, kiddo. Game on.
 
2012-12-20 01:56:35 PM  

here to help: It gets stated here all the time and elsewhere. Do your own homework. I don't play the citation troll game.


So you can't. That's fine, it just takes credence from your claim is all. It doesn't invalidate your arguments, it just detracts from them.
 
2012-12-20 01:58:33 PM  

here to help: You pay a fee to go through proper and extensive training. The trainers must be able to identify people with issues. If any red flags are raised... NO GUN FOR YOU!

And I don't mean Jack Yokel of Unionjacklivefreeordiesville with a monetary interest in hustling as many licenses through as possible. I mean real pros intent on doing a good job to keep guns out of the hands of whackadoodles.


Like cops?
 
2012-12-20 01:59:43 PM  

I'm an Egyptian!: Arkanaut: "An armed society is a polite society."

Just like Somalia! And Syria! And post invasion Iraq! And Afghanistan!


Hey! Somalis are a very polite people. Some of them will even pray for you after raping you and cutting off your lips.

//"Death to infidels" is a prayer, right?
 
2012-12-20 02:01:45 PM  

stevarooni: No chance on that being abused. "He was a menace to all of us!" "Because he had a 'Don't tread on me' bumper sticker?" "It's better for all of us, sir, that he never be allowed near a gun. This is my judgment, and I'm sticking to it." "Funny that only Republicans have ever passed your course, isn't it?"


If the trainers are are trained and certified professionals that should not come into play. There can be an appeals process and possibly a reapplication process. If somewhat at one point is deemed unfit in a final judgment they can come back in say 5 years or so to see if they've matured or sorted out their issues.

Anyone trainers abusing the system deal with harsh punishment just like any other government mandated position.

Seriously it can't be any worse then Billy Bob at Guns n Stuff making the judgment call for society.

Again I am not necessarily anti gun. I just want some common sense applied.
 
2012-12-20 02:05:29 PM  
Oh gimme a break. If you guys haven't seen people claiming that more people should be armed and restrictions should be watered down than you are either being disingenuous or have not been paying attention. I really don't care if you believe me or not.

Anyway... got some stuff to do. Maybe I'll be back later. Good convo though and I hope no matter what side of this debate you are on I got you guys thinking somewhat. This is going to be a very huge topic (even more so than it has been in the past) so let's start figuring out WTF can be done about it.

Peace.
 
2012-12-20 02:11:10 PM  

here to help: Oh gimme a break. If you guys haven't seen people claiming that more people should be armed and restrictions should be watered down than you are either being disingenuous or have not been paying attention. I really don't care if you believe me or not.

Anyway... got some stuff to do. Maybe I'll be back later. Good convo though and I hope no matter what side of this debate you are on I got you guys thinking somewhat. This is going to be a very huge topic (even more so than it has been in the past) so let's start figuring out WTF can be done about it.

Peace.


Teach farking MATH!
 
2012-12-20 02:16:40 PM  

here to help: Again I am not necessarily anti gun. I just want some common sense applied.


This phrase alone is enough to make me want to disregard everything you've written up to this point. The disparity of what's considered "common sense" means that anyone who uses that phrase is begging the question; whatever they say must be true, it's just common sense! Fie upon Thee, here to help.
 
2012-12-20 02:18:37 PM  

here to help: Oh gimme a break. If you guys haven't seen people claiming that more people should be armed and restrictions should be watered down than you are either being disingenuous or have not been paying attention. I really don't care if you believe me or not.


Okay, so you were using hyperbole before. Thanks for clarifying that. Which, again, weakens your argument. Your initial argument, that the NRA wanted guns in the hands of anyone with the dough no matter their mental state, was patently ludicrous. But when you weaken it to say that some Farkers have advocated loosening restrictions from...something to something else, why, that just makes this conversation pointless. I say to you, "Good day."
 
2012-12-20 02:36:03 PM  

stevarooni: A Shambling Mound: I will state for the record that I think assaulting someone [carrying] a gun is a perfectly good reason to get shot, however. Receiving injury (however disproportionate) is a risk you choose to take when you decide attempting to dispense injury is a good idea.

As long as you never have to put those words into practice, fine, but disproportionate use of force will get you charged with manslaughter or worse if you shoot someone for simple assault. If you think they're going to kill you (6 1/2 foot pro wrestler vs. 4 1/2 foot granny with a CCW, or if the guy's cracked the back of your favorite head against a barroom wall and asks, "Have you paid your dues, Jack?"), you're justified. But meeting non-deadly force with deadly force is a quick trip to jail en route to prison.


..and as I stated earlier in the thread, I agree with that entirely. The person that took the shot has learned that you're only allowed to shoot people who are actively trying to kill you and the person that ate the bullet has learned that maybe you shouldn't go around trying to beat people up because it might turn out poorly for you.

Although in practice, the former is much more likely than the latter. It's been my experience that people who go around trying to beat people up rarely learn anything at all, ever. The same may be true for those who shoot people for simple assault but I have less experience with that and can't say one way or another.
 
2012-12-20 04:12:05 PM  
What... did you guys all get bored without good ole hth to lash out at?

You know I'm right.

I'm always right.
 
2012-12-20 04:25:37 PM  
Oh and here's what your supposedly "sane" and elected leaders are saying about trying to come up with some solutions...

Leading House Republicans responded to the president's pledge in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre by restating their firm opposition to new limits on guns or ammunition, setting up the possibility of a bitter legislative battle and a philosophical clash over the Second Amendment soon after Mr. Obama's inauguration.

Essentially a bunch of kids are dead in yet ANOTHER mass shooting and these guys are gonna fight any attempts to try and come up with some solutions.

Now THAT is just the mainstream politicians.

Tell you what guys... why don't you all cite some proof that the pro gun folks have better solutions than I have mentioned here. Hell... show me ANY solution that people on that side of the debate have to get things under control.

Seriously. I am always willing to hear the other side of things. I can understand and occasionally agree with right wing policies. On this I have not seen even the tiniest bit of effort to try and curb sh*t aside from "MOAR JEBUS IN SCHOOL!" "NO HOMOS!!" "DHURRR BAN VIDEO GAMES!!!"
 
2012-12-20 06:07:45 PM  

here to help: Essentially a bunch of kids are dead in yet ANOTHER mass shooting and these guys are gonna fight any attempts to try and come up with some solutions.


You misstate the case, HtH. Refusing to compromise on fundamental human rights is not "fighting any attempt to try to come up with some solutions," it's refusing those solutions that involve abrogating fundamental human rights, especially when those would not have had an effect in this case.

here to help: Tell you what guys... why don't you all cite some proof that the pro gun folks have better solutions than I have mentioned here. Hell... show me ANY solution that people on that side of the debate have to get things under control.


* 1 credit hour of gun safety training required for a high school diploma. Not necessarily proficiency with weapons (though I wouldn't mind promoting shooting clubs associated with schools), but gun safety just makes sense.
* Train (or subsidize training for) teachers in CCW and allow them to carry on-campus. Don't announce who is and isn't armed, or even how many teachers are armed. This reduces the "(legal) gun-free zone" risks, because a potential attacker cannot know if or how many trained shooters he might face.
* Include information about firearms safety with discussions about mentally handicapped or autistic children; evaluating kids for the level of security required to keep guns safe around these kids might have helped in Newtown...or he might have caved her head in with a brick and pulled the gun safe key from a chain around her neck.

None of this will truly get things under control. Life is chaotic and even stricter gun control will not keep everyone safe, especially not in a way that's proportional to the lost rights.
 
2012-12-20 06:59:40 PM  

tricycleracer: Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.

This is why the law is bullshiat.
 
1.  Talk shiat to someone.
2.  They walk towards you.
3.  Shoot them.


4. Survive.

Ta Da! Claim you were just standing your ground and its the dead guy' s fault. Since its Florida, they believe you because you shot first.
 
2012-12-20 07:09:43 PM  

irreverend mother: tricycleracer: Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.

This is why the law is bullshiat.

1.  Talk shiat to someone.
2.  They walk towards you.
3.  Shoot them.

4. Survive.

Ta Da! Claim you were just standing your ground and its the dead guy' s fault. Since its Florida, they believe you because you shot first.


We are used to it since that's how it goes down with cops, all, the, time.
 
Displayed 224 of 224 comments

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