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  
•       •       •

5705 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report