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.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Remember the guy who shot another man in a Florida movie theater for texting during the previews? New records show the shooter was texting, too   (tbo.com) divider line 129
    More: Followup, lone survivor, mandatory minimums, Chad Oulson, Matthew Myers  
•       •       •

5085 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2014 at 5:25 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-13 06:03:24 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


I might as well quote you too.
Maybe Drew will see your popularity and hire you for Fark TV.
 
2014-03-13 06:03:49 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: It's not so much "word salad" as "word mixed greens."


Haven't you got bored of it yet? I mean if you catch meow on TFD it becomes oddly normal.
 
2014-03-13 06:06:07 PM  
strife:

[s9.postimg.org image 300x377]

Oh hello to you also! I am wishing for seeing the international perspective on this crime matter although I will say to you that we cannot have to you the addition of the amicus brief because you do not have the standing in the United States of these Americas.
 
2014-03-13 06:06:53 PM  
Typical gun owner.
 
2014-03-13 06:08:22 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Typical gun owner.


Nah typical gun owners don't get reciprocity on their CCWs.
 
2014-03-13 06:08:56 PM  
I initially felt that movie texters get what they deserve, I suppose for the sake of consistency, we should just shoot this guy too.
 
2014-03-13 06:09:15 PM  

plcow: factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!

This.

Does calling him a hypocrite really matter at this point?  He killed someone.


Doesn't matter. He was a Fark hero when it happened and he will continue to be a Fark hero.  The appropriate penalty for being mildly annoying for a minute or two is death apparently.
 
2014-03-13 06:10:39 PM  

Callous: Sounds about right.


Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "
 
2014-03-13 06:12:37 PM  

Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.


meow has been here for years.
 
2014-03-13 06:12:58 PM  
The problem I have with this is that old dude started the incident and then said he felt threatened. Don't start sh*t if you are afraid of the consequences. And really, how much of a disturbance can a person texting make? Yeah the light from the phone is bright but not enough to cause you to be unable to see the movie. texting is mostly silent if the ringer is turned down or off.

This guy has a "get off my lawn" mentality and thinks his retired cop badge gets him out of things. I don't care he's old, send him to jail for the rest of his life
 
2014-03-13 06:13:04 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "


This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.
 
2014-03-13 06:13:08 PM  

Osomatic: The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a phone is a good guy with a phone.  ...and a gun. A gun definitely helps too.


Can I throw a cellphone at your head at close range when you are elderly?

Someone should make a law, oh wait...

784.08Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentence.-
(1)A person who is convicted of an aggravated assault or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years and fined not more than $10,000 and shall also be ordered by the sentencing judge to make restitution to the victim of such offense and to perform up to 500 hours of community service work. Restitution and community service work shall be in addition to any fine or sentence which may be imposed and shall not be in lieu thereof.
(2)Whenever a person is charged with committing an assault or aggravated assault or a battery or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older, regardless of whether he or she knows or has reason to know the age of the victim, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:
(a)In the case of aggravated battery, from a felony of the second degree to a felony of the first degree.
(b)In the case of aggravated assault, from a felony of the third degree to a felony of the second degree.
(c)In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.
(d)In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(3)Notwithstanding the provisions of s. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0948/Sections/0948.01.html">948.01, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld.
 
2014-03-13 06:13:30 PM  
 How 'bout a new fark game.  Call it "what the hell did Meow say"   I'll go first.


Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news.

Meow is tired of seeing this type of story in the news.

The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this.
Meow says Throwing popcorn escalated this event  and  was also the reason?

Listen, you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left(lead) to someone doing the shooting.

No idea here.

He was lucky to not have been shot
Meow says the shooter was lucky not to have been shot,  because...

 and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person.
The victim might have also had a gun.  The victim did not have a gun.  But, if the victim had a gun the shooter would need his gun to protect himself.

Any one else wanna play?
 
2014-03-13 06:14:13 PM  
What a surprise, an asshole who thought that a valid response to tossed popcorn was instant execution is also an entitled hypocrite. I'm shocked.
 
2014-03-13 06:15:46 PM  

elguerodiablo: Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.

meow has been here for years.


And definitely has a different schtick than PN.
 
2014-03-13 06:15:50 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "


No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?
 
2014-03-13 06:16:57 PM  

brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?


Down there you're allowed to murder people as long as you say you were scared.
 
2014-03-13 06:19:23 PM  

brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?


The whole cellphone toss excuse is BS. The guy didn't throw a cellphone. If you watch the video he snatched the guy's popcorn and tossed it in his face, then the guy shot him immediately after.
 
2014-03-13 06:21:05 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?

Down there you're allowed to murder people as long as you say you were scared.


You are as long as you don't read the law and expect to be arrested by the police.
 
2014-03-13 06:22:02 PM  

jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.


Bill Hicks had a good way of determining who should have a gun: "Do you want to own a gun, yes or no? If you said yes, you don't deserve to own a gun."
 
2014-03-13 06:24:18 PM  
They say Reeves acted in self-defense.

After being viciously attacked by a cell-phone and a life-threatening piece of popcorn, a like response in understandable. Retired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr. is a  i.imgur.com  who risks his life every day protecting citizens against similar violence. He was only defending the public and himself. He is a i.imgur.com . Chad Oulson was a wanton, hard-core criminal threatening the safety of every person in that theater and inviting terrorism and the collapse of Democracy as well as the rape of every child present. Having criminal charges against  i.imgur.com  Retired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr. is a slap in the face of the Constitution and every brave man and woman that wears a law enforcement uniform.  i.imgur.com  Retired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr should be getting a medal instead of being treated in such a shameless and humiliating manner. Please think of  i.imgur.comRetired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr.'s family and their terrible ordeal   . . .

 . . . or so says his defense attorney.
 
2014-03-13 06:25:00 PM  

ongbok: brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?

The whole cellphone toss excuse is BS. The guy didn't throw a cellphone. If you watch the video he snatched the guy's popcorn and tossed it in his face, then the guy shot him immediately after.


Hey now, the old man's cornea could have been scratched by those sharp popcorn husks. Have you ever scratched your cornea? You have to put ointment in your eye! OINTMENT! It's uncomfortable and totally worth killing over.
 
2014-03-13 06:25:37 PM  

elguerodiablo: meow has been here for years.


ah, maybe i have just gotten sober enough recently to notice?

it surprises me though, i got the impression that he was just doing the obnoxious thing to show how shockingly bad at grammar he was, i also figure that sort of thing would get tired after a month or so.  you say he's been here for years, has this always been his shtick?
 
2014-03-13 06:28:29 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-13 06:30:59 PM  

Wadded Beef: So you're saying the shooter's a dick.


Angry Middle Age White Guy Syndrome.
 
2014-03-13 06:32:35 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news.


yet here you are
 
2014-03-13 06:32:44 PM  
All I know is that the Facebook-powered comments at TFA are hilarious, what with the right-wing hooker-prostitute defending the shooter and all.
 
2014-03-13 06:33:08 PM  

Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.


Meow has been around a while.

Not necessarily my cup of tea, but I appreciate the effort and he has the occasional LOL moment.
 
2014-03-13 06:33:51 PM  
Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired. They say Reeves acted in self-defense.

They pull a phone, you pull a gun.  That's the Wesley Chapel way.
 
2014-03-13 06:36:41 PM  
jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com

That should be the question that determines whether someone gets a handgun permit not.
 
2014-03-13 06:47:32 PM  

cretinbob: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

[www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480]

That should be the question that determines whether someone gets a handgun permit not.


Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?
 
2014-03-13 06:51:06 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.


Look at my original post.  I never said the shooting was justified.  I was responding to the title of the farking thread that the (retired)cop shot a guy over a dispute about texting in a theater, and it turns out he himself was texting in that very same theater.

I don't give a shiat that something was thrown at him prior to the shooting unless that object could be thrown repeatedly and was a threat of death or serious bodily harm.  And clearly popcorn and a cell phone(unless it's Zack Morris' cell phone) don't qualify.
 
2014-03-13 06:52:02 PM  

MFAWG: Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.

Meow has been around a while.

Not necessarily my cup of tea, but I appreciate the effort and he has the occasional LOL moment.


I always thought MSTD was a she.
 
2014-03-13 06:55:37 PM  

cretinbob: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

[www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480]

That should be the question that determines whether someone gets a handgun permit not.


You are trying awfully hard to live up to that handle aren't you?

2/10 - way over did it with the copy pasta
 
2014-03-13 06:57:49 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?


Because LEO need their weapons
 
2014-03-13 07:00:45 PM  

Callous: Callous: buttcat: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.

Actually cops are civilians, retired or not.  I guess you believe we should disarm the police.

Sorry, I guess jaykay believes we should disarm the police.


he believes that all firearms owners are domestic terrorists.
 
2014-03-13 07:10:17 PM  

cretinbob: The Southern Dandy: Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?

Because LEO need their weapons


LEOs are civilians.
 
2014-03-13 07:11:10 PM  

Vexed Thespian: you say he's been here for years, has this always been his shtick?


yep, unfortunately not enough of us have him (her i think) on ignore. she thinks it's cute. it's not.
 
2014-03-13 07:15:47 PM  
"Listen, you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left(lead) to someone doing the shooting.

No idea here. "

It means turn the other cheek.
 
2014-03-13 07:17:33 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


I've missed you, meow. You go away for so long, I think you've died. and then you return, like an exploding star, never missing a beat. Why do you leave so often, for so long?
 
2014-03-13 07:20:19 PM  

JustHereForThePics: Sooo... how long is a "moment"? How many "moments" between text/bang?

I'll reserve further outrage until we know the answer to this. Until then, I will automatically assume this is journalistic pearl-clutching.

EDIT: Found another source... 15 minutes worth of "moments", however many that is...


15 minutes between the shooter's text and the confrontation? Wow... Even if it was 2 minutes, the "hypocrite" angle doesn't work without more info. Watch out though, nobody likes actual facts here, you'll be shot down as a White Knighter for this guy before you know what's happening.
 
2014-03-13 07:28:21 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


He might be making some good points, but I'll never know. I can't or won't read that gibberish.
 
2014-03-13 07:33:09 PM  

Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.


With "was" being the operative word here. This crazy dude hasn't been a cop in a lot of years.
And by all accounts he was a dick then, too.
 
2014-03-13 07:37:56 PM  

dstrick44: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

With "was" being the operative word here. This crazy dude hasn't been a cop in a lot of years.
And by all accounts he was a dick then, too.


Clearly people like him should have a monopoly on power and the rest of us should be disarmed.
 
2014-03-13 07:38:47 PM  

Callous: Callous: buttcat: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.

Actually cops are civilians, retired or not.  I guess you believe we should disarm the police.

Sorry, I guess jaykay believes we should disarm the police.


Cops are always on duty. Till they retire, then they're always off duty.
That's why it's cool when a cop shoots someone in a road rage incident after closing the bars.
 
2014-03-13 07:48:54 PM  

proteus_b: Vexed Thespian: you say he's been here for years, has this always been his shtick?

yep, unfortunately not enough of us have him (her i think) on ignore. she thinks it's cute. it's not.


favorited in bright red as "bjork"... also, having seen meow's posts for years, my brain now actually processes them as naturally as anything the filterpwning spits out... :)
 
2014-03-13 07:51:08 PM  

Mikey1969: JustHereForThePics: Sooo... how long is a "moment"? How many "moments" between text/bang?

I'll reserve further outrage until we know the answer to this. Until then, I will automatically assume this is journalistic pearl-clutching.

EDIT: Found another source... 15 minutes worth of "moments", however many that is...

15 minutes between the shooter's text and the confrontation? Wow... Even if it was 2 minutes, the "hypocrite" angle doesn't work without more info. Watch out though, nobody likes actual facts here, you'll be shot down as a White Knighter for this guy before you know what's happening.


Yep.

Source was Christian Science Monitor. Would link to it but hard to do on mobile. And before you ask, no I am not driving.

You and I are the only ones talking about it in this thread, tho...
 
2014-03-13 07:53:42 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.


Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?
 
2014-03-13 07:57:17 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?


The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.
 
2014-03-13 07:59:57 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.


And even if he did throw a cellphone, shooting somebody in response isn't a proper response, unless you are a retarded coward.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report