Ableton Forum

b0unce wrote:some people murder just to collect medals

Killing in the name of!

Moody wrote:
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?

because that says nothing about defending your neighbors property with deadly force. It says that if you are on your property, you are not obligated to run away before using deadly force in self defense.


i'm afraid that a guy with a tire iron who starts running away from you as soon as you brandish your gun does not represent a threat to your person.

i guess you can't read.



also, as far as watching your clip that you posted from trusted news source "good morning fucking america" you may notice that the senator who wrote the law that i quoted in the previous post that got the guy off, not the castle doctrine, did not apply in this case and that the court was misreading it.



.lm.

leisuremuffin wrote:

Moody wrote:
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?

because that says nothing about defending your neighbors property with deadly force. It says that if you are on your property, you are not obligated to run away before using deadly force in self defense.


i'm afraid that a guy with a tire iron who starts running away from you as soon as you brandish your gun does not represent a threat to your person.

i guess you can't read.



also, as far as watching your clip that you posted from trusted news source "good morning fucking america" you may notice that the senator who wrote the law that i quoted in the previous post that got the guy off, not the castle doctrine, did not apply in this case and that the court was misreading it.



.lm.

Law is to be interpretted not dictated by those who write it. Fortunately or unfortunately in this case. He was on his property according to that interview.

Tone Deft wrote: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.

There you go again. Homer Simpson gun mentality. Indeed.

More ways to stop crime. Do tell, Captain. You and your sidekick MuffinTop, running around. The Dynamic Dunces. Showering the criminals with love potion and then pinning a little forgiveness charm on their lapels. Sweetness for sure. That'll stop 'em, Cap'n!

*smootchy*

All this is like a scene out of Mystery Men. b0unce can be Mr. Furious to your Cap'n Sphincter.

Hey, isn't that you in the blue?



...

Moody wrote: Law is to be interpretted not dictated by those who write it..

yeah, and you better believe if the guys who got shot had local familys with any money we'd be looking at another outcome. Or, even better, what if the shooter was an illegal, or even just black? hm.



.lm.

b0unce wrote:some people murder just to collect medals

Hey, that's a good one Mr. Furious!





...

leisuremuffin wrote:

Moody wrote: Law is to be interpretted not dictated by those who write it..

yeah, and you better believe if the guys who got shot had local familys with any money we'd be looking at another outcome. Or, even better, what if the shooter was an illegal, or even just black? hm.



.lm.

Yeah, I stated earlier that this is a sad truth and more a monetary issue then race issue but, he had his day in court as the law provides.

Hey you guys have a good weekend. I am done with this internet crap for a while.

just a quick question for landcrab:

you don't seriously think anybody here give a fuck about what you think, do you?


What is your problem? You think you can just show up somewhere, and instantly spout off complete nonsense without any period of contribution or getting to know people?


i don't get it, man. Why would you come into place and act a complete cunt and then wonder why people don't like you?


you have some pretty serious problems, brah.



.lm.

Tone Deft wrote:

landrvr1 wrote:

Tone Deft wrote: that guitar is worthless without the hair products.

Now THAT's uncalled for.

OK, you're right, sorry, with the right tights and makeup a wig would suffice, no hair products required.


Texas - nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
(what movie <sans the Texas part>?)

Aliens. This movie is required viewing in my house at least once a month

leisuremuffin wrote:

Moody wrote: Law is to be interpretted not dictated by those who write it..

yeah, and you better believe if the guys who got shot had local familys with any money we'd be looking at another outcome. Or, even better, what if the shooter was an illegal, or even just black? hm.



.lm.

You're a fucking idiot. An illegal shooting two other illegals. Happens every day and barely makes a blip on the radar. For you and your ilk, this will always get back to race and not crime.

What if the shooter was black? Not a real complicated issue there. He would have been found guilty. I also know that if he would have been black and killed two white trash inbred motherfuckers, he still would have been found guilty, but you and Captain Sphincter would be singing his praises.

And then there's Quanell X, the Activist. That motherfucker also wouldn't give two shits about a couple of dead crackers, but make these guys latino or black and - WHOA - STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES! I'm here before Jesse! Finally! For Quanell and his team, the Sanctity of Life is also quite selective. Blacks and Latinos only, thanks you very much. Crackers need not apply.

Selective Sanctity of Life. Ain't it Grand!

...

leisuremuffin wrote:just a quick question for landcrab:

you don't seriously think anybody here give a fuck about what you think, do you?


What is your problem? You think you can just show up somewhere, and instantly spout off complete nonsense without any period of contribution or getting to know people?


i don't get it, man. Why would you come into place and act a complete cunt and then wonder why people don't like you?


you have some pretty serious problems, brah.



.lm.

This from the guy who hangs on my every word.

YOU are lecturing ME? Oh, my. Ooohhh my. That's almost as good as Tone's 'I've stopped many criminals' comment. Not quite, but close.






...

i'm an idiot, huh.


oh, sorry i hurt your feelings for not absolving you of your severe social problems when you said you liked my music for a brief second.


seriously, what is your problem?


you are incapable of going more than 10 minutes without making an ass of yourself. Even I can go a few weeks.

You post nothing but complete shit on this forum, and you're not even funny. Shit, I'd rather read TITBAG than you.

You cannot have a reasonable debate. not even for one post. You are just doing the typed equivilant of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling insults.


What do you expect the outcome of this behaivior will be?



.lm.

leisuremuffin wrote:You think you can just show up somewhere, and instantly spout off complete nonsense without any period of contribution or getting to know people?

Umm. Yes. I can and have.

Your Tone is getting rather threatening. I better tell my neighbor to keep a watchful eye.

...

leisuremuffin wrote:What do you expect the outcome of this behaivior will be?

You paying me a visit in the dead of night to teach me a lesson I'll not likely forget?

...