Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
oh no, there are lots of other hero's who haven't killed anybody.Neoteny wrote:I like how, in order to be a hero in America, you have to kill someone.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Actually, that's not that impossible. Very probable in fact if the guy was a bad shot. (Why on earth he carries a gun around if he's a bad shot is a different question though.) Though ofcourse in 90% of the cases he would've hit the ground or something.MeDeFe wrote:Missing the legs you say you were aiming for and hitting the head instead is quite an achievement, even at the gianormous distance of 21m.
Yup.Shot in the head over a fucking subwoofer, excessive use of force much?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
It's only because of the actions of the first, that the second acted. If the first guy hadn't violated the other guys property, this never would have happened. Don't blame the 2nd guy, blame the robber. The second he broke into the guys car, he lost all rights. It was his active CHOICE to do what he did. The other guy just defended himself from the criminal.Neoteny wrote:There's also one life taken unnecessarily. That's a bad thing.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Not as far as carbon footprints are concerned.Neoteny wrote:There's also one life taken unnecessarily. That's a bad thing.
I wouldn't charge him for murder. He obviously shouldn't have been firing a gun, so there's going to be charges for that, and rightly so in my opinion. I don't know what he was thinking was going to happen when he started shooting...Snorri1234 wrote:Ridiculous right-wing testosteron injections aside, I can't say I think the guy is guilty. He did what he could afterwards and I doubt he was aiming for the head.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
That is true. Still, a headshot from 70 feet is quite impressive if intentional.Neoteny wrote:By the way, it was definitely a rifle, and not a pistol. Way more accurate...
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.


jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Well, obviously. It falls to ordinary civilians to exact punishment for every civic violation. It would be a bit more sporting to pull him out of the car and beat the crap out of him in the street, but if you can't manage that, shoot the bastard. If you can't shoot him, radio in an airstrike. Deviants must be dealt with.Timminz wrote:So, if someone runs a red light, and makes me swerve to avoid him, can I shoot him? He did break the law first, and it was to my detriment. It was a choice he made. Let him suffer the consequences.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
No, the other guy ALSO made an active choice. The choice to go get his weapon and then RE-ENGAGE the criminals.He didn't "just defend himself" because his life was not in danger until he acted on HIS choice.bedub1 wrote:It's only because of the actions of the first, that the second acted. If the first guy hadn't violated the other guys property, this never would have happened. Don't blame the 2nd guy, blame the robber. The second he broke into the guys car, he lost all rights. It was his active CHOICE to do what he did. The other guy just defended himself from the criminal.Neoteny wrote:There's also one life taken unnecessarily. That's a bad thing.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.