On women's rights

vibise said:
I posted a link to the court's decision, where its reasoning was laid out.
Click to expand...
Again reading the paper shows that you presented a faulty interpretation of the events. The crux of the case was not decided on the basis of whether he had a gun, but had he been adequately informed of the previous actio.

again you prove an unreliable source.
 
glenlogie said:
You were wrong in the way you presentEd the incident. You said the shooter was a bystander who came upon the event. The article said the shooter was the victim.

why did you lie?
Click to expand...
That is the way I remembered it. But that is a minor detail. The main point was that he was not in any personal danger, was shooting someone running away after a robbery, and that he killed a little girl sitting in a car. And was not charged for his irresponsible and deadly behavior.
 
glenlogie said:
Again reading the paper shows that you presented a faulty interpretation of the events. The crux of the case was not decided on the basis of whether he had a gun, but had he been adequately informed of the previous actio.

again you prove an unreliable source.
Click to expand...
The case clearly focused on whether his use of the gun was justified and legal.
 
vibise said:
That is the way I remembered it. But that is a minor detail. The main point was that he was not in any personal danger, was shooting someone running away after a robbery, and that he killed a little girl sitting in a car. And was not charged for his irresponsible and deadly behavior.
Click to expand...
Minor detail, baloney. It was the crux of the case. This is why you cannot be trusted l
 
vibise said:
That is the way I remembered it. But that is a minor detail. The main point was that he was not in any personal danger, was shooting someone running away after a robbery, and that he killed a little girl sitting in a car. And was not charged for his irresponsible and deadly behavior.
Click to expand...
So you linked to a story without reading it.

You cannot be trusted.
 
vibise said:
That is the way I remembered it. But that is a minor detail. The main point was that he was not in any personal danger, was shooting someone running away after a robbery, and that he killed a little girl sitting in a car. And was not charged for his irresponsible and deadly behavior.
Click to expand...
Do you do your job with that degree of carelessness?
 
vibise said:
That is the way I remembered it. But that is a minor detail. The main point was that he was not in any personal danger, was shooting someone running away after a robbery, and that he killed a little girl sitting in a car. And was not charged for his irresponsible and deadly behavior.
Click to expand...
The main issue was his behavior and not in the weapon that he used. You inadvertently stated it correctly.
 
glenlogie said:
The main issue was his behavior and not in the weapon that he used. You inadvertently stated it correctly.
Click to expand...
His behavior was that he used his gun to try to kill a fleeing robber (who did not deserve to die for that crime), but then shot a little girl dead.

IT was completely irresponsible to use the gun for this purpose, and in a setting that endangered other people, resulting in the death of that little girl.
 
vibise said:
His behavior was that he used his gun to try to kill a fleeing robber (who did not deserve to die for that crime), but then shot a little girl dead.

IT was completely irresponsible to use the gun for this purpose, and in a setting that endangered other people, resulting in the death of that little girl.
Click to expand...
Other government officals and a grand jury of citizens disagree with you. Why should your opinion override theirs?
 
vibise said:
There was a recent case in which a man saw another man rob an ATM, so the first man pulled out his gun and started firing at the fleeing robber, apparently feeling justified in acting as judge, jury and executioner. He missed the robber, but hit a little girl sitting in a car with her father. She died. And amazingly, that man was not charged with anything!

So giving out guns to random people is really a threat to public safety.
Click to expand...
Link? And by the way it's not as great a threat to public safety as "giving out automobiles" to random people. By the way, if you find out where that line is where they're "giving out" guns and cars please let me know, I'd like to get one of each.
 
Thistle said:
Link? And by the way it's not as great a threat to public safety as "giving out automobiles" to random people. By the way, if you find out where that line is where they're "giving out" guns and cars please let me know, I'd like to get one of each.
Click to expand...
I missed the giving out guns line. She never fails to provide a good laugh.
 
glenlogie said:
The main issue was his behavior and not in the weapon that he used.
Click to expand...
If he'd used a knife, that little girl would still be alive.

When your acting like an arse with a gun is what caused the collateral fatality, the problem is the gun.
The vigilante should have been tried for manslaughter.
 
.
Eightcrackers said:
If he'd used a knife, that little girl would still be alive.

When your acting like an arse with a gun is what caused the collateral fatality, the problem is the gun.
The vigilante should have been tried for manslaughter.
Click to expand...
That is just speculation on your part.
So you think that the man should have just let himself be robbed. Another reason not to listen to you.
As a non citizen, your opinion is worthless.
 
vibise said:
His behavior was that he used his gun to try to kill a fleeing robber (who did not deserve to die for that crime), but then shot a little girl dead.

IT was completely irresponsible to use the gun for this purpose, and in a setting that endangered other people, resulting in the death of that little girl.
Click to expand...
Just the other day a missile killed two people in Poland and Ukraine wanted to trigger article 5 starting World War III. After looking into the matter further it turned out that Ukraine not Russia fire that missile.

Nevertheless we read this, "The National Security Council said that the US has “full confidence” in the Polish investigation into the blast and that the “party ultimately responsible” for the incident is Russia for its ongoing invasion." [link]

So it's perfectly fine for Zelinskyy to try to ignite World War III by falsely blaming Russia for a missile that he fired because Russia is " ultimately responsible" because of the invasion, but a strong armed robber is not ultimately responsible when he causes a shot to be fired that ultimately hits a little girl. This is exactly the kind of despicable, fiendish, diabolical, reasoning that you engage in every single day, and not just you everybody on the left.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Shooting a robber as they are running away, is not self-defence.

It's illegal execution.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely correct - even police can't shoot a robber who's running away.

BTW, 'Eightcrackers', totally off topic but a simple question regarding your signature - who did what God requires to be saved - Hitler or Schindler?

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (GOD)

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Apostle Paul)
 
Thistle said:
Link? And by the way it's not as great a threat to public safety as "giving out automobiles" to random people. By the way, if you find out where that line is where they're "giving out" guns and cars please let me know, I'd like to get one of each.
Click to expand...
Cars are designed for transportation, but can kill when used inappropriately.
Guns are designed to kill efficiently, and so that is what they are used for.

When a driver kills someone with his car, even if inadvertent, he is often charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Why shouldn't a man inappropriately shooting his gun in a public place be similarly charged if he kills a bystander?
 
glenlogie said:
.

That is just speculation on your part.
So you think that the man should have just let himself be robbed. Another reason not to listen to you.
As a non citizen, your opinion is worthless.
Click to expand...
Do you think a petty thief should be shot dead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top