12
   

KID GETS WHAT HE DESERVED

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 02:07 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
My daughter came accross this story the other night. Apparently the child in question was 16.
That 's not much of a child.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 02:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
That 's not much of a child.


I agree, Dave. In no time at all, we could have this young person whipped into shape raping, torturing and murdering, all to advance the American way [plus, very likely make some tidy profits along the way].
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2011 06:57 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
U imply that homicide is among "childish things"

I implied no such thing. Throwing rocks is not homicide.

Quote:
People (and animals) have been killed by thrown rocks (not just Goliath).
People have also been killed by cars. Do you advocate killing anyone driving a car?
People have been killed by guns. Do you advocate killing anyone that shoots a gun?
People have been killed by lots of things. If you want to argue that anything that leads to death is reason to shoot to kill then I was correct.

Written words such as yours have lead to death of others. So, it is perfectly OK under your logic for someone to shoot you for advocating shooting others.
Below viewing threshold (view)
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:05 am
@StinkyPete,
Does your mom know you are using her computer?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 07:07 am
@parados,
Obviously not, or she'd wash his mouth out with soap.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 09:32 pm

TOP SHOT had a competition in throwing rocks,
as primitive Man's first means of war
and of hunting animals.

I think that everyone who has posted here
has trivialized the significance of throwing rocks at people (in cars or not).





David
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 09:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
as opposed to trivializing shooting a child with a crossbow out of vengeance...
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 02:12 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
as opposed to trivializing shooting a child with a crossbow out of vengeance...
The 16 year old alleged "child" was maliciously executing deeds of evil.
Hopefully, he will stop doing that now that he has experienced the JUSTIFIED vengeance
that was executed upon him and the decent people of America will all be SAFER for that fact.

If I had done that at ANY age,
I 'd deem it proper if I got shot in return for it. Throwing rocks like that
is intolerably dangerous. We shoud all thank the noble archer; blessings be upon him.





David
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 07:10 am
@OmSigDAVID,
As someone pointed out earlier, I think you are being hypocritical here. Throwing rocks is not "intolerably dangerous" unless by rocks you mean boulders. It is being intentionally destructive of property - by no means acceptable but not dangerous in any way. The worst you get as a victim is a ding in your car or a crack on your windshield. Would that piss me off? Sure. Does that merit attempted homicide, IMO no. Someone keying your car is a decent analogy to the crime here. No self defense required.

Where your hypocrisy comes into play is the response. Shooting someone with a crossbow is attempted murder same as if a gun was used. If you were to be consistent with your earlier postings, you would defend the right of the teenager to defend himself in accordance with his second amendment rights. I would have expected you to respond by saying that the teen should have pulled a firearm and "defended" himself by drawing down on his attacker. Instead, inexplicably, you are suddently siding with the aggressor and against the one who needed to defend himself.

In some ways, this is the same argument you and I have circled around before. I don't deny that the second amendment allows citizens to own firearms, but I see an armed public as much more risky than an unarmed public simply because of cases like this one (and numerous others I've posted) where one party can claim they feel "threatened" and therefore justified in using lethal force in "self defense". If you think that throwing rocks calls for "JUSTIFIED vengeance" and that includes the use of firearms then all your talk of self defense is really just window dressing. There is no self defense in this case. Your term - vengeance - is right on the money. Is that why people want to carry firearms?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 07:32 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
If you want to argue that anything that leads to death is reason to shoot to kill...

Damn.... giving birth is a capital offense?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 08:45:07