Wyoming

[Moody]

you need that many words to tell us it's ok to shoot people in the back for B&E/un-armed robbery?


That's your position. straight up. You see someone breaking into your neighbors house, no deadly weapons, go ahead and shoot em.


you don't need a whole lot of bullshit to say that. We can ignore the fact that they were illegals for the moment. What you are saying is that if you see someone breaking into your neighbors house, you have the right to blow them away. I'm saying you don't, and that has nothing to do with the right to own a gun.




OK, the moment is over, now let's revisit the illegal part. I'm not saying the guy shot them because they were not white, i'm saying that he would have had a much tougher time getting away with it if they were different people. Face it, if those guys were the sons of anybody in the community there it would be a different kind of shit storm going around right now.



i don't know why i'm even typing this, landcrab, because i don't really give a shit about you and your campaign to be both everybodies buddy and a complete fucking cunt rag.




.lm.

The state of Texas says you do. It is called the Castle doctrine.

Watch the link above.

[andydes]

So you guys are all for theft huh?

And you're all for murder?

[landrvr1]

you need that many words to tell us it's ok to shoot people in the back for B&E/un-armed robbery?


That's your position. straight up. You see someone breaking into your neighbors house, no deadly weapons, go ahead and shoot em.


you don't need a whole lot of bullshit to say that. We can ignore the fact that they were illegals for the moment. What you are saying is that if you see someone breaking into your neighbors house, you have the right to blow them away. I'm saying you don't, and that has nothing to do with the right to own a gun.




OK, the moment is over, now let's revisit the illegal part. I'm not saying the guy shot them because they were not white, i'm saying that he would have had a much tougher time getting away with it if they were different people. Face it, if those guys were the sons of anybody in the community there it would be a different kind of shit storm going around right now.



i don't know why i'm even typing this, landcrab, because i don't really give a shit about you and your campaign to be both everybodies buddy and a complete fucking cunt rag.




.lm.

First off, MuffinTop, if you're going to play in this thread you're going to need to get a whole lot more clever.

Second, you and Tone are going to make great Fuck Buddies.

Third, never have I stated that it's my position that it's okay to shoot people in the back for B&E or whatever. That's You projecting, again. There's a couple of support groups for that problem, and you should avail yourself of their help.

Fourth, my position is this. What's done is done and what's fun is fun and what's dead is dead. That, and you need to get a whole lot more clever. I'd start off with some Oscar Wilde...

i'm saying that he would have had a much tougher time getting away with it if they were different people. Face it, if those guys were the sons of anybody in the community there it would be a different kind of shit storm going around right now.

You've obviously never been to Texas.

i don't know why i'm even typing this, landcrab...

Because your 100meter dash in the Special Olympics doesn't start for another couple of hours?


...

[Tone Deft]

landrover - love and respect. twat, d0uche_bag, cunt, pussy, asshole and the like are all pronouns that are used so much they have no real meaning. in a political thread there are topics you can't debate, they hit our core values and we react 'how can anyone possibly think like that?!?!?!'
anytime I insult someone in a political thread it's just in that thread, internet, serious business.

I'm very much on the left, I feel I've thought out my values, BUT I do know that there are intelligent people on the right who have thought out their values and they are worth listening to. I'd much rather have a discussion/debate on a topic than sit around and agree.



I doubt that this will get much traction in the media, 'The Jena 6' is an incredibly hot racial issue, ask the average jackass on the street, they won't know what you're talking about.


so the state of Texas says it's OK to kill people in this situation, that doesn't make it right. omfg, yeah, let's let Texas be our moral guiding light, oh, wait on of its favorite sons is President, yeah, that's going GREAT!

every person I've met from Texas has been great, go figure.

[JoshR]

Not sure if we're only talking about guns now, but I lived in Jackson for a year, which was about all I could take. It was great for a while, but it is certainly a big, empty state. If that's your thing than great, but if you crave cities, starbucks, people, etc. then I wouldn't recommend it.

There are very few women in WY. Even Jackson, with it's tourist attractions, is pretty sparse. The skiing is the best in the world, better than Europe or Whistler, but 6 hours is a long drive. Unless you think you can handle spending a LOT of time alone, I'd think long and hard about taking the job.

Hope that helps.
-J

[landrvr1]

So you guys are all for theft huh?

Those two guys could have killed and ass raped the entire county, and their positions would still be the same.

They want to hide behind the 'shot them in the back' defense, but.....reaaaaalllly now. Don't we all know that's just a lot of fucking smoke and mirrors?

For guys like this, no crime is too great to have sympathy for the brown people.

If these two guys had been a couple of crackers, Captain Sphincter and his sidekick MuffinTop would have flown down to Texas together to award Joe Hill a big gold dildo for a job well done.

Fact.


...

[leisuremuffin]

The state of Texas says you do. It is called the Castle doctrine.

Watch the link above.

no sir, the so called "castle doctrine" says nothing of the sort. But why would i expect anyone to do any research or doubt what they are spoonfed?

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/200 ... nd_20.html





however there is a section of texas penal code that says this:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

that's what got the guy off. However i think that this case, especially after listening to the 911 call is a bunch of horseshit. This man did not need to go out there and shoot these people.



.lm.

[Moody]

So you guys are all for theft huh?

And you're all for murder?

Are you kidding? Defending oneself and property is far from murder. If you want to talk about murder; then lets talk about Iraq.

[Moody]

The state of Texas says you do. It is called the Castle doctrine.

Watch the link above.

no sir, the so called "castle doctrine" says nothing of the sort. But why would i expect anyone to do any research or doubt what they are spoonfed?

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/200 ... nd_20.html





however there is a section of texas penal code that says this:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

that's what got the guy off. However i think that this case, especially after listening to the 911 call is a bunch of horseshit. This man did not need to go out there and shoot these people.



.lm.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

I believe that is the statute and now there is precedence in a court of law. What is it you were trying to say I was wrong about?

[Moody]

So you guys are all for theft huh?

Those two guys could have killed and ass raped the entire county, and their positions would still be the same.

They want to hide behind the 'shot them in the back' defense, but.....reaaaaalllly now. Don't we all know that's just a lot of fucking smoke and mirrors?

For guys like this, no crime is too great to have sympathy for the brown people.

If these two guys had been a couple of crackers, Captain Sphincter and his sidekick MuffinTop would have flown down to Texas together to award Joe Hill a big gold dildo for a job well done.

Fact.


...

It does appear that way. I wonder who they believe should have stopped this crime?

[Tone Deft]

So you guys are all for theft huh?

And you're all for murder?

Are you kidding? Defending oneself and property is far from murder.

"I'm going to take my gun outside and shoot them"
"please don't do that"
"I'm going to take my gun outside and shoot them"
"please don't do that"
"I'm going to take my gun outside and shoot them"
"please don't do that"


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

it's first degree murder, except in Texas. pre meditated homicide. I'd love to see this one go to the Supreme Court.

It does appear that way. I wonder who they believe should have stopped this crime?

meh, rover's last post was pretty pointless. there are more ways to stop crime than just killing people. again, the Homer Simpson gun mentality.

[Moody]

I certainly thought you guys would have picked up the idea from all those Ministry concerts that in Texas all we do is drink beer, shoot guns and burn shit.

[Moody]

And you're all for murder?

Are you kidding? Defending oneself and property is far from murder.

"I'm going to take my gun outside and shoot them"
"please don't do that"
"I'm going to take my gun outside and shoot them"
"please don't do that"
"I'm going to take my gun outside and shoot them"
"please don't do that"


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

it's first degree murder, except in Texas. pre meditated homicide. I'd love to see this one go to the Supreme Court.

It does appear that way. I wonder who they believe should have stopped this crime?

meh, rover's last post was pretty pointless. there are more ways to stop crime than just killing people. again, the Homer Simpson gun mentality.

I agree with you here; I certainly believed this man would have been indicted but, apparently there is more to the tape then what the media has presented. A ruling was made with all the evidence and not the half truths presented in the media. The law is usually read differently for day time and night time offenses as well. Being in broad daylight I thought that would have hampered his case as well but, new state laws have proven other wise.

[Moody]

Wonder what the law is in Wyoming. (back on topic )

[b0unce]

some people murder just to collect medals