Now that is some Wild West bullshit right there. :alberta:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/17/waco-gang-shooting/27493915/
Quote9 dead in motorcyle gang gunfight at Texas restaurant
Nine motorcycle gang members were killed Sunday when a gunfight broke out between three rival gangs at a restaurant in Waco, Texas, police said.
Waco police Sgt. W. Patrick Swanton confirmed "multiple fatalities" in the shootout at Twin Peaks Restaurant shortly after noon. Eighteen people were transferred to local hospitals with gunshot and stab wounds, KCEN-TV reported.
Remarkably, Swanton said, all of the dead or injured were "members of criminal biker gangs." Bystanders at the shopping center and a nearby restaurant — as well as police present when the shootout spilled into the parking lot — were "all unscathed," he said.
One officer at the scene was hospitalized due to a "heat-related issue," not an injury, he said.
"Fortunately, none of our officers, nor any of our innocent civilians, were injured in this melee here today," he said.
Swanton said police expected to recover about 100 weapons from the crime scene — one of the worst he'd ever encountered.
The initial fight, he said, began in the Twin Peaks restroom. He told KWTX-TV that the fight quickly escalated from fists and feet to chains, clubs and knives, then to gunfire.
Swanton said police knew there could be trouble at the restaurant, as they'd learned that a gang "recruitment" event was taking place at Twin Peaks. He said police tried to keep the gathering from happening, but that restaurant management refused to cooperate.
"What happened here today could have been avoided if we'd had management at a local establishment listen to their police department and assist us," he said. "They failed to do that and this is the event, what happened."
He said police in the parking lot were fired upon and returned fire. Law enforcement may well have inflicted some of the injuries or deaths, he said, but he added that until the investigation is complete he couldn't be sure. "Obviously, we've got a long way to go on this crime scene behind us."
On its Facebook page earlier in the afternoon, the Waco Police Department advised residents to "avoid the Central Texas Market Place as the area is NOT safe. Officers are continuing to arrest individuals coming to the scene with weapons." It added, "This is not the time to sight see as we are dealing with very dangerous individuals."
A witness at the nearby Don Carlos Mexican Restaurant told KWTX he and his family walked into the parking lot between the restaurants when they heard several gunshots and saw wounded being taken from the fight scene. "We crouched down in front of our pick-up truck because that was the only cover we had," the man, who asked not to be identified, said.
Twin Peaks: still causing bar fights, 25 years later. :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 17, 2015, 06:49:57 PM
Remarkably, Swanton said, all of the dead or injured were "members of criminal biker gangs." Bystanders at the shopping center and a nearby restaurant — as well as police present when the shootout spilled into the parking lot — were "all unscathed," he said.[/b]
Too bad NY cops aren't as good shots as Texas bikers.
Quote from: grumbler on May 17, 2015, 06:57:40 PM
Twin Peaks: still causing bar fights, 25 years later. :cool:
David Lynch has much to answer for.
Seems there were five gangs on the scene. I bet there will be a movie in the works for this in few years.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-biker-gang-shooting-20150517-story.html
QuoteSwanton said at least five rival gangs gathered at Twin Peaks for a meeting that he said focused on turf and recruitment, two areas where the groups have often clashed. Preliminary findings indicate a dispute broke out in a bathroom and then spilled into the restaurant where it escalated to include knives and firearms, he said. There were 150 to 200 gang members inside the restaurant at the time.
Wow, that might be a record for felony murder charges.
I guess that must have been a sight to see. :wacko:
https://twitter.com/KashannKilson/status/600132963410415617
If only some of the law abiding citizens were armed as well, this could have been avoided.
Quote from: Berkut on May 18, 2015, 07:44:07 AM
If only some of the law abiding citizens were armed as well, this could have been avoided.
They could have stood their ground.
Actually, it raises a important question, in this current reality of the Obama police state and federal attempts to subvert Texas.
Can we even be sure that the police intervention was legal, or necessary?
How do we know that in fact some of the people shot and killed by the police were not simply gang members standing their ground legally protecting themselves from the other people legally standing their ground?
All these people dead, many more injured, and in a free and 2nd Amendment protected state like Texas, it is entirely likely that this entire thing was actually completely legal - just a large number of people all standing their ground against other people legally standing THEIR ground.
I mean, I suppose there might have been one criminal initially, maybe even just a misdeamenor petty assault charge that some god fearing gun toting citizen legally stood his ground against...
This has to become a film.
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
They stood their ground and foiled the Obamateur Administration.
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
With nine killed and eighteen hospitalized? When was the last time a shootout that bloody that happened?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2015, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
With nine killed and eighteen hospitalized? When was the last time a shootout that bloody that happened?
Do colleges and theaters count?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 18, 2015, 09:26:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2015, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
With nine killed and eighteen hospitalized? When was the last time a shootout that bloody that happened?
Do colleges and theaters count?
Those were shootings, not shootouts.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 18, 2015, 09:26:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2015, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
With nine killed and eighteen hospitalized? When was the last time a shootout that bloody that happened?
Do colleges and theaters count?
Actually, it's far from the worst gunfight in Waco.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2015, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
With nine killed and eighteen hospitalized? When was the last time a shootout that bloody that happened?
All the time in Mexico?
Quote from: Monoriu on May 18, 2015, 09:28:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2015, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 18, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
What's so special about this? Shootouts between motorcycle gangs are hardly unheard of. :hmm:
With nine killed and eighteen hospitalized? When was the last time a shootout that bloody that happened?
All the time in Mexico?
I'm talking about America obviously.
A movie needs more than a shootout between people you'd probably prefer to be dead or imprisoned.
They opened one of those Twin Peaks here recently, I've heard their food is good, and the scantily clad pretty girls is a plus.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 18, 2015, 09:40:57 AM
They opened one of those Twin Peaks here recently, I've heard their food is good, and the scantily clad pretty girls is a plus.
Ha, I forgot it was a titty restaurant. :D You'd think I would have remembered that given the name.
Waco, TX. A lovely place. :)
Quote from: Syt on May 18, 2015, 09:46:28 AM
Waco, TX. A lovely place. :)
Actually it is a shit hole...oh right I see what you did.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 18, 2015, 09:28:47 AM
All the time in Mexico?
I would think those are mostly hit jobs.
"If only we could rein in white culture and #WhiteOnWhiteCrime"
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2015, 02:13:24 AM
"If only we could rein in white culture and #WhiteOnWhiteCrime"
When is the White Community going to address this? Where are the "moderate" Whites?
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2015, 07:25:56 AM
are the "moderate" Whites?
You mean, besides Garbon?
You guys are weird.
"they have no role models and watch shows like #SonsofAnarchy that show white folks in a bad way #whiteonwhitecrime"
"#whiteonwhitecrime - see? they tear up their own communities.. and carry guns"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/waco-texas-biker-gang_n_7307050.html
QuoteIn 2013, whites led all other groups in aggravated assault, larceny-theft, arson, weapons-carrying, and vandalism. When it comes to sexual assault, whites take the forcible rape cake. They are also more likely to kill children, the elderly, family members, their significant others, and even themselves! They commit more sex-related crimes, gang related crimes, and are more likely to kill at their places of employment. In 2013, an estimated 10,076 people died in the U.S. due to drunk driving crashes. Driving while drunk is almost exclusively a white crime because everyone knows black people prefer to drink on their porches or inside their homes.
So why is white on white crime so prevalent, one may ask? Is it the music they listen to? Is it the white divorce rate, resulting in more white children coming from broken homes? Perhaps it's the TV shows they watch or the violent sports they play. More than likely, it is a combination of all of those things, with the exact root cause unclear. What is clear, though, is that not enough people are talking about the crime plaguing the white community. We need to spread the word, holding protests and demonstrations that call attention to this growing matter. Because, after all -- white lives matter, too.
I guess you people are having a field day with this.
You people?
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
I guess you people are having a field day with this.
What'd you mean, "you people?" :yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 19, 2015, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
I guess you people are having a field day with this.
What'd you mean, "you people?" :yeahright:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
I guess you people are having a field day with this.
Are you trying to claim that white lives
don't matter? :mad:
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2015, 08:54:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 19, 2015, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
I guess you people are having a field day with this.
What'd you mean, "you people?" :yeahright:
:rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjWLQb8A.jpg&hash=2d4af94ef4268db33002fda5ce609be975861e89) (http://imgur.com/jWLQb8A)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 19, 2015, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
I guess you people are having a field day with this.
What'd you mean, "you people?" :yeahright:
What do YOU mean, "you people"???
It's like a real-life version of a Joe Lansdale novel. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2015, 08:53:36 AM
You people?
Yeah, as in Languish posters. What did you think I meant??
QuoteIn 2013, whites led all other groups in aggravated assault, larceny-theft, arson, weapons-carrying, and vandalism. When it comes to sexual assault, whites take the forcible rape cake.
Does that mean that whites
don't committ the most murders or "non-forcible" rapes? :hmm:
Oh, shit, thought I was responding to derspiess with that pic. :face:
You people suck.
At some point in the near future HuffPo and The Onion will be indistinguishable.
So, can we state with certainty that there was even any felony committed here?
According to the gun nuts, it is entirely possible that everything that happened in respects to a bunch of people engaging in a out and out gun battle could be perfectly legal. Everyone has the right to carry heavy weapons, and defend themselves as long as they felt threatened. Hell, we've determined that you are allowed to shoot people who are not even armed, as long as you think they might hurt you, so shooting people who ARE armed is surely reasonable self defense.
Really, as soon as any of them saw another armed gang member who they felt was potentially threatening them, they had the right to try to kill them first. At that point, pretty much everyone there had a right to pull out their piece and start shoooting each other in an attempt to lawfully defend themselves (assuming, of course, that their weapons were all legal).
Now it may turn out that this is not the case, that in fact there was some conspiracy or something. But on the bare face of it - a meeting between heavily *but potentially legally* armed club members that escalates to even potential violence, then in fact it is entirely possible given the existing gun crazies interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that you could have several dozen people get into a pitched gun battle resulting in mass casualties, all while legally defending themselves, and with no legal demand to even back down or try to get away.
My sarcasm detector exploded
The funny thing is that it sounds sarcastic, but it is actually perfectly logically consistent.
The combination of the idea that everyone has the right to be armed to defend themselves along with the idea that there is no legal demand to ever back down or de-escalate means that you can have people shooting one another perfectly legally. Hell, it happens already, just not in large groups.
But the legal ideas involved, so far as I am aware, do not change when it is 50 people all exercising their rights at the same time.
Of course, as a practical matter, they are going to charge a bunch of people with crimes anyway.
But if nobody shot each other that day, then certainly the gun nuts would argue that large "clubs" of men are allowed to openly carry their weapons about with them, right?
And there is a claim that if you feel threatened with potential bodily harm, you are then allowed to take out that weapon and shoot someone with it.
So as along as one person, at some point, felt so threatened, they had the right to shoot someone else who they thought was threatening them. And it could certainly be the case that the threat in question doesn't even have to be an illegal act or crime.
Once that happens, pretty much everyone there is just as justified in concluding that their person or lives were in danger, and then THEY all had the right to start shooting as well.
I'm a gun crazy.
I name each round of ammo.
I also wear a protective sheath to catch brass. That's what being Protestant is all about.
I draw smily faces on my ammo. :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 10:18:22 AM
I also wear a protective sheath to catch brass. That's what being Protestant is all about.
That explains all my extra ammo. :blush:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2015, 10:06:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 09:58:46 AM
I'm a gun crazy.
I named my guns.
Charlene?
Berkut does make a good point. It could be argued that everyone there did stand their ground.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 19, 2015, 11:04:11 AM
Berkut does make a good point. It could be argued that everyone there did stand their ground.
Except the first guy.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 19, 2015, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2015, 10:06:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 09:58:46 AM
I'm a gun crazy.
I named my guns.
Charlene?
Berkut does make a good point. It could be argued that everyone there did stand their ground.
If they were smart they would have gone prone, or at least kneeled down. :duh:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 19, 2015, 11:04:11 AM
Berkut does make a good point. It could be argued that everyone there did stand their ground.
I just enjoy watching him argue with nobody.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 11:06:12 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 19, 2015, 11:04:11 AM
Berkut does make a good point. It could be argued that everyone there did stand their ground.
Except the first guy.
Zimmerman has proven that the "first guy" can start shooting without anyone else doing anything even illegal. As long as he can claim he felt threatened, he is all set to start shooting.
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2015, 11:28:40 AM
Zimmerman has proven that the "first guy" can start shooting without anyone else doing anything even illegal. As long as he can claim he felt threatened, he is all set to start shooting.
In Iowa at least it's illegal to bash someone's head against a sidewalk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 11:29:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2015, 11:28:40 AM
Zimmerman has proven that the "first guy" can start shooting without anyone else doing anything even illegal. As long as he can claim he felt threatened, he is all set to start shooting.
In Iowa at least it's illegal to bash someone's head against a sidewalk.
It illegal to stalk someone?
Not sure I see the relevance Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 11:36:37 AM
Not sure I see the relevance Raz.
Zimmerman was stalking the young Mr. Martin before the shooting. Following him round in his car, then getting out to bother him.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 11:38:54 AM
Zimmerman was stalking the young Mr. Martin before the shooting. Following him round in his car, then getting out to bother him.
I still don't see the relevance.
Do you understand what Throbby and I were talking about?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 11:29:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2015, 11:28:40 AM
Zimmerman has proven that the "first guy" can start shooting without anyone else doing anything even illegal. As long as he can claim he felt threatened, he is all set to start shooting.
In Iowa at least it's illegal to bash someone's head against a sidewalk.
I am allowed to shoot anybody I see committing a crime?
In any case an obviously mentally unstable criminal like Zimmerman who provoked a confrontation in defiance of law enforcement is not credible.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2015, 12:11:05 PM
I am allowed to shoot anybody I see committing a crime?
Of course not. Why do you ask?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 11:39:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 11:38:54 AM
Zimmerman was stalking the young Mr. Martin before the shooting. Following him round in his car, then getting out to bother him.
I still don't see the relevance.
Do you understand what Throbby and I were talking about?
He provoked a violent confrontation that resulted in a child's death and it was ok. I think that is basically what Berkut was saying.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2015, 12:11:05 PM
I am allowed to shoot anybody I see committing a crime?
Of course not. Why do you ask?
Then how is it being a crime relevent to the situation?
Child? Please.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
He provoked a violent confrontation that resulted in a child's death and it was ok. I think that is basically what Berkut was saying.
"Zimmerman has proven that the "first guy" can start shooting without anyone else doing anything even illegal."
This is basically what he said.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2015, 12:13:52 PM
Then how is it being a crime relevent to the situation?
You are not allowed to shoot someone who is jaywalking or littering because neither of those would be interpreted by a reasonable person as an immediate threat to their life.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 11:39:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 11:38:54 AM
Zimmerman was stalking the young Mr. Martin before the shooting. Following him round in his car, then getting out to bother him.
I still don't see the relevance.
Do you understand what Throbby and I were talking about?
I believe so.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 12:45:09 PM
I believe so.
Then please draw out the connection between it and your rhetorical question about stalking, because I just don't see it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 12:53:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 12:45:09 PM
I believe so.
Then please draw out the connection between it and your rhetorical question about stalking, because I just don't see it.
Berkut was suggesting that Martin committing no crime before being shot, you suggest he was by fighting Zimmerman. I'm suggesting that Zimmerman was committing a crime before shooting Martin ( Stalking), and that any altercation that occurred prior to the shooting was caused by Zimmerman committing a crime.
Did Zimmerman have sex on the beach when shooting Martin?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 01:02:54 PM
Berkut was suggesting that Martin committing no crime before being shot, you suggest he was by fighting Zimmerman. I'm suggesting that Zimmerman was committing a crime before shooting Martin ( Stalking), and that any altercation that occurred prior to the shooting was caused by Zimmerman committing a crime.
Fair enough. At the beginning of the story I said this was the nub: whether it was legal to bash someone's head on a sidewalk for following you.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 01:02:54 PM
Berkut was suggesting that Martin committing no crime before being shot, you suggest he was by fighting Zimmerman. I'm suggesting that Zimmerman was committing a crime before shooting Martin ( Stalking), and that any altercation that occurred prior to the shooting was caused by Zimmerman committing a crime.
Actually I think Trayvon attacked Zimmerman because he thought he was gay.
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 01:02:54 PM
Berkut was suggesting that Martin committing no crime before being shot, you suggest he was by fighting Zimmerman. I'm suggesting that Zimmerman was committing a crime before shooting Martin ( Stalking), and that any altercation that occurred prior to the shooting was caused by Zimmerman committing a crime.
Actually I think Trayvon attacked Zimmerman because he thought he was gay.
Self-hating fags shouldn't direct their anger at others. :(
No shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2015, 01:02:54 PM
Berkut was suggesting that Martin committing no crime before being shot, you suggest he was by fighting Zimmerman. I'm suggesting that Zimmerman was committing a crime before shooting Martin ( Stalking), and that any altercation that occurred prior to the shooting was caused by Zimmerman committing a crime.
Fair enough. At the beginning of the story I said this was the nub: whether it was legal to bash someone's head on a sidewalk for following you.
Stand your ground. I think it's legal to win a fight when someone starts one with you. I think a good argument came be made that Mr. Martin believed his life was in danger when he was accosted by an armed stalker.
Mr. Martin?? He was a child. Barely older than a toddler.
I love how the gun nuts know they cannot even engage my argument, because it is completely accurate.
A bunch of gang members getting into an all out gun battle could in fact be perfectly legal under their bizarro views on gun rights.
Yep. I (certified gun nut-- I even got a license FFS) won't engage with Berkut because he's 100% accurate. No other reason. I'm just a-skeered of him being so perfectly accurate.
I'm not against the right to bear arms per se, but I think too many nutjobs who I wouldn't trust with a screwdriver have access to them.
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 03:04:14 PM
Yep. I (certified gun nut-- I even got a license FFS) won't engage with Berkut because he's 100% accurate. No other reason. I'm just a-skeered of him being so perfectly accurate.
I rather doubt you are scared.
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 02:39:33 PM
Mr. Martin?? He was a child. Barely older than a toddler.
Why not just go out and say it? He was a murderous half-man, driven by jungle rage and reefer madness.
Don't say such things about that baby-faced kid.
Quote from: Syt on May 19, 2015, 03:08:03 PM
I'm not against the right to bear arms per se, but I think too many nutjobs who I wouldn't trust with a screwdriver have access to them.
I have screwdrivers too. ;)
BTW, I even have some of those specialized kits, with like the different weird star screwdrivers and shit. :showoff:
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 18, 2015, 09:40:57 AM
They opened one of those Twin Peaks here recently, I've heard their food is good, and the scantily clad pretty girls is a plus.
Anyone want to talk about the important stuff? The food. Any reviews?
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 19, 2015, 03:21:54 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 19, 2015, 03:08:03 PM
I'm not against the right to bear arms per se, but I think too many nutjobs who I wouldn't trust with a screwdriver have access to them.
I have screwdrivers too. ;)
BTW, I even have some of those specialized kits, with like the different weird star screwdrivers and shit. :showoff:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F31UGnbYM22L.jpg&hash=3e54b2e6b98b08a8c6a85c0b8d309523b6469087)
Boom.
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 03:17:42 PM
Don't say such things about that baby-faced kid.
Yeah, I saw what they were saying Breitbart.
I bet you did.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 19, 2015, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 18, 2015, 09:40:57 AM
They opened one of those Twin Peaks here recently, I've heard their food is good, and the scantily clad pretty girls is a plus.
Anyone want to talk about the important stuff? The food. Any reviews?
Important stuff: I would rate Twin Peaks' uniforms among the top tier of breastaurants. Perhaps the best. TK is good too, but I'm not too fond of those Hooter's outfits tbh.
https://www.google.com/search?q=twin+peaks+restaurant&tbm=isch&imgil=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%253Ba2VeW1e4Up0xGM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.cvmaride.com%25252Fridewaiver.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%252Ca2VeW1e4Up0xGM%252C_&usg=__zoYXLeeyTvuFHPc91qPCVqiUoSs%3D&biw=1429&bih=923&dpr=0.9&ved=0CFQQyjc&ei=CLNbVcf8OsqSsAXe-oDIBQ#imgrc=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%3Ba2VeW1e4Up0xGM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cvmaride.com%252FTWIN_PEAKS.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cvmaride.com%252Fridewaiver.html%3B800%3B600
Who the hell gets a boob job to work at a restaurant? :huh:
https://www.seekingarrangement.com/joinfree?k=twinpeaks-b&ref=goo~targeting_women-twinpeaks1~b&gclid=CMa-wNHpzsUCFQmRaQodlzUAjA
Incidentally, the first hit on Ask.com for "twin peaks restaurants" is this sugar daddy site.
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2015, 02:43:15 PM
A bunch of gang members getting into an all out gun battle could in fact be perfectly legal under their bizarro views on gun rights.
Open carry of handguns is not (yet) allowed anywhere in Texas unless you're some sort of cop or cop-like thing. If they're drunk/otherwise intoxicated (.08), they can't carry concealed, CCL or not. So chances are, at least most of these dudes weren't even allowed to have the guns in the first place.
As far as stand your ground goes, I don't think showing up at a dump like Twin Peaks with the stated intent of starting shit with some other leathered up retards who are there for the same reason allows you to legally start popping rounds off in the parking lot.
I'm not really gun nut though. vOv
E: Being a member of a "criminal gang" disqualifies you from even having a gun in your vehicle in this state, so they weren't legal, full stop. Unless somehow a couple of biker gangs that are all in on the meth production aren't considered illegal gangs for whatever reason.
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2015, 03:04:14 PM
Yep. I (certified gun nut-- I even got a license FFS) won't engage with Berkut because he's 100% accurate. No other reason. I'm just a-skeered of him being so perfectly accurate.
Monster.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 19, 2015, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2015, 02:43:15 PM
A bunch of gang members getting into an all out gun battle could in fact be perfectly legal under their bizarro views on gun rights.
Open carry of handguns is not (yet) allowed anywhere in Texas unless you're some sort of cop or cop-like thing. If they're drunk/otherwise intoxicated (.08), they can't carry concealed, CCL or not. So chances are, at least most of these dudes weren't even allowed to have the guns in the first place.
As far as stand your ground goes, I don't think showing up at a dump like Twin Peaks with the stated intent of starting shit with some other leathered up retards who are there for the same reason allows you to legally start popping rounds off in the parking lot.
I'm not really gun nut though. vOv
I am assuming, however, that they did NOT show up with intent to start any shit - the shit started anyway, and they all exercised their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves from an imminent threat. Lots of people doing that at once means that you get a pitched battle.
The key here is that the only justification you need to shoot someone is to be able to credibly claim that you felt threatened by them - but another person exercising THEIR right to do the exact same thing can and will create exactly that same threat to others. That is the hilarity of the gun nut logic - everyone doing exactly what their RAHTS say they can do results in a presumably perfectly legal shootout.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 19, 2015, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 18, 2015, 09:40:57 AM
They opened one of those Twin Peaks here recently, I've heard their food is good, and the scantily clad pretty girls is a plus.
Anyone want to talk about the important stuff? The food. Any reviews?
No skittles.
QuoteI am assuming, however, that they did NOT show up with intent to start any shit - the shit started anyway, and they all exercised their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves from an imminent threat. Lots of people doing that at once means that you get a pitched battle.
The key here is that the only justification you need to shoot someone is to be able to credibly claim that you felt threatened by them - but another person exercising THEIR right to do the exact same thing can and will create exactly that same threat to others. That is the hilarity of the gun nut logic - everyone doing exactly what their RAHTS say they can do results in a presumably perfectly legal shootout.
AFAIK if there are two groups of legal CCL holders in the Denny's parking lot, and one guy in one group 1 starts shooting, that doesn't mean group 2 can just start legally hosing bullets everywhere. At the very least, the guy who started shooting and everyone who shot at people that weren't him aren't doing something legal.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 19, 2015, 05:40:51 PM
AFAIK if there are two groups of legal CCL holders in the Denny's parking lot, and one guy in one group 1 starts shooting, that doesn't mean group 2 can just start legally hosing bullets everywhere. At the very least, the guy who started shooting and everyone who shot at people that weren't him aren't doing something legal.
Guy who started shooting could have believed someone was going to shoot him or assault him by some other means.
B is laying on the mustard a bit but he has a point - if you take SYG seriously, it is theoretically possible to have a situation like this where everyone acted legally (at least in shooting). My guess probably not on the actual facts of what happened here but not beyond the realm of possibility.
Persons A, B, C, and D are in a parking lot. Persons A and B are friends, as are C and D.
Person C says to person B "I think you are an asshole, and your momma dresses you funny!" in a threatening manner.
Person B says "I will kill you for saying that about my momma!", but he is totally joking! He gestures when he does this, exposing his legally carried pistol in his holster.
Person C, not realizing that person B is joking, and seeing the gun, thinks he is is about to get killed, having heard a perfectly credible threat to kill him from someone clearly capable of doing so. So he pulls out his gun and shoots at Person B.
Person A, seeing someone trying to murder their friend, recalls that millions of crimes per year are deterred by law abiding citizens and their guns, pulls out his gun an squeezes of a couple rounds at Person C.
Person D, seeing someone trying to murder their friend, recalls that millions of crimes per year are deterred by law abiding citizens and their guns, pulls out his gun an squeezes of a couple rounds at Person A.
Now we have four people in a gunfight, all of whom can legitimately claim that they felt themselves or someone else was in imminent fear of their life.
Now instead of four people, lets imagine 100 .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2015, 05:46:39 PM
Guy who started shooting could have believed someone was going to shoot him or assault him by some other means.
B is laying on the mustard a bit but he has a point - if you take SYG seriously, it is theoretically possible to have a situation like this where everyone acted legally (at least in shooting). My guess probably not on the actual facts of what happened here but not beyond the realm of possibility.
It would have to be guy from group 1 feels threatened and blasts one guy from group 2. Group 2 now feels threatened and shoots at guy in group 1. Group 1 is now scared and shoots at group 2.
Something like that?
Group 1 might have some issues since they started shooting at everyone in Group 2. You would have your magical firefight, but I don't think everyone would be getting away with it by claiming stand your ground.
This also has zero to do with a couple of biker gangs in the meth business blasting each other in a twin peaks parking lot.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 19, 2015, 05:54:01 PM
This also has zero to do with a couple of biker gangs in the meth business blasting each other in a twin peaks parking lot.
Probably.
But there is a reason why you don't see SYG and conceal carry in NYC for example. Because it doesn't work so good in a subway system.
This is why there is the crime of brandishing I suppose. You can't even let your gun show unless carrying openly.
Also, it is justified to shoot to prevent harm to third parties even if you aren't the one in immediate threat.
I'm sure some of these arrested guys will get off just for the simple fact that a gunfight involving a hundred dudes is a big clusterfuck that nobody will really ever be able to sort out. Probably they'll mostly be up on weapons charges of various kinds.
Quote from: Berkut on May 19, 2015, 05:48:15 PM
Persons A, B, C, and D are in a parking lot. Persons A and B are friends, as are C and D.
Person C says to person B "I think you are an asshole, and your momma dresses you funny!" in a threatening manner.
Person B says "I will kill you for saying that about my momma!", but he is totally joking! He gestures when he does this, exposing his legally carried pistol in his holster.
Person C, not realizing that person B is joking, and seeing the gun, thinks he is is about to get killed, having heard a perfectly credible threat to kill him from someone clearly capable of doing so. So he pulls out his gun and shoots at Person B.
If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself with deadly force. B probably did something illegal too by flashing that gun, but I'm not that familiar with how that part of it works.
E: If MIM is right about having to keep it completely concealed, then looks like B started the shit. C starting some shit by threatening B to begin with doesn't help his case either, BTW.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2015, 05:55:21 PM
Probably.
But there is a reason why you don't see SYG and conceal carry in NYC for example. Because it doesn't work so good in a subway system.
Ah, so that's the reason.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 19, 2015, 05:57:19 PM
If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself.
If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2015, 05:59:07 PM
If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?
Well yeah, if there's only one survivor and no one else saw anything at all, he can say whatever he wants, right? But looking at that, C might also be in trouble for saying something in a threatening manner to kick things off. B still apparently can't flash that gun too. So if they weren't both dead, C and B are easily in some shit.
E: Really, A and D seem like the only ones who might have a reason to pull a gun out, since there are bullets flying at them and their friends, but the whole firefight is started by a dude threatening someone while carrying and potentially shooting someone for no reason (C), and another dude illegally flashing a gun (B), so...I don't know how that would work with A and D. It certainly isn't a "legal" firefight though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2015, 05:59:07 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 19, 2015, 05:57:19 PM
If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself.
If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?
Don't know why any lawyer would want to try that in this case, though. Once a Texas jury hears testimony that the shoot-out was gang-related, they aren't going to care about any variation of a self-defense justification (of which SYG is just a type of). The defense I would presume most lawyers would try is simple denial: "Look the authorities don't know who shot who. They just picked my client to charge with this particular death pretty much at random. They've failed to prove that he shot anyone, much less the particular victim he is charged with shooting".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 19, 2015, 05:04:36 PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=twin+peaks+restaurant&tbm=isch&imgil=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%253Ba2VeW1e4Up0xGM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.cvmaride.com%25252Fridewaiver.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%252Ca2VeW1e4Up0xGM%252C_&usg=__zoYXLeeyTvuFHPc91qPCVqiUoSs%3D&biw=1429&bih=923&dpr=0.9&ved=0CFQQyjc&ei=CLNbVcf8OsqSsAXe-oDIBQ#imgrc=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%3Ba2VeW1e4Up0xGM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cvmaride.com%252FTWIN_PEAKS.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cvmaride.com%252Fridewaiver.html%3B800%3B600
Who the hell gets a boob job to work at a restaurant? :huh:
I think it is more of a symptom than a cause.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2015, 05:59:07 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 19, 2015, 05:57:19 PM
If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself.
If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?
People shoot one another with a lot less justification than that and get away with it...
Quote from: dps
Don't know why any lawyer would want to try that in this case, though. Once a Texas jury hears testimony that the shoot-out was gang-related, they aren't going to care about any variation of a self-defense justification (of which SYG is just a type of).
Of course - that is because people fundamentally realize that the entire SYG/shoot when "threatened", lets all pack guns for a safer society is basically completely bullshit, and even a moment of thought about it makes it clear that you cannot actually use that as an actual standard, since it creates perverse situations that simply cannot be allowed in an actual civil society. IE, if you actually held to it consistently, you could very much have situation where a bunch of people are shooting each other completely legally.
The NRA hasn't apparently figured that out though, so they keep pretending like their position actually makes sense.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 19, 2015, 06:02:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 19, 2015, 05:59:07 PM
If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?
Well yeah, if there's only one survivor and no one else saw anything at all, he can say whatever he wants, right? But looking at that, C might also be in trouble for saying something in a threatening manner to kick things off.
But it is not illegal in and of itself - it migth magically become illegal once the police decide they need to charge someone with something, since in actual society you cannot allow shootouts
But that is pretty much my point. A person can do something that is perfectly legal, but creates in another persons mind a "threat".
Quote
B still apparently can't flash that gun too. So if they weren't both dead, C and B are easily in some shit.
He didn't flash the gun, it was accidentally shown. He never intended to flash anything. You can replace that with C just knowing he has a gun in some fashion - maybe they talked about previously.
Quote
E: Really, A and D seem like the only ones who might have a reason to pull a gun out, since there are bullets flying at them and their friends, but the whole firefight is started by a dude threatening someone while carrying and potentially shooting someone for no reason (C), and another dude illegally flashing a gun (B), so...I don't know how that would work with A and D. It certainly isn't a "legal" firefight though.
Of course it is - nobody did anything illegal at all, that absent the firefight would get anyone in any trouble. I know this, because I made up the scenario myself.
It doesn't really matter HOW the first person finds themselves "threatened". You can't really tell me you cannot imagine a scenario where some person could feel threatened by someone else without that other person committing a crime?
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2015, 02:01:37 AM
Quote from: dps
Don't know why any lawyer would want to try that in this case, though. Once a Texas jury hears testimony that the shoot-out was gang-related, they aren't going to care about any variation of a self-defense justification (of which SYG is just a type of).
Of course - that is because people fundamentally realize that the entire SYG/shoot when "threatened", lets all pack guns for a safer society is basically completely bullshit, and even a moment of thought about it makes it clear that you cannot actually use that as an actual standard, since it creates perverse situations that simply cannot be allowed in an actual civil society. IE, if you actually held to it consistently, you could very much have situation where a bunch of people are shooting each other completely legally.
The NRA hasn't apparently figured that out though, so they keep pretending like their position actually makes sense.
If they haven't figured it out, then they're not pretending. They actually believe it.
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2015, 02:05:38 AM
But it is not illegal in and of itself - it migth magically become illegal once the police decide they need to charge someone with something, since in actual society you cannot allow shootouts
But that is pretty much my point. A person can do something that is perfectly legal, but creates in another persons mind a "threat".
?? It doesn't magically become illegal. The person who thinks theres a threat (and is wrong) isn't a-okay to kill someone else just because. They can try to claim self defense, but that doesn't always work.
Quote
He didn't flash the gun, it was accidentally shown. He never intended to flash anything. You can replace that with C just knowing he has a gun in some fashion - maybe they talked about previously.
You can't do that. It seems concealed is concealed. In your second scenario: C has once again shot a guy who wasn't doing anything to immediately endanger his life, and this time the other guy did absolutely nothing wrong. You can't just shoot someone for talking about your mom, or whatever he said in this bizarre scenario.
QuoteOf course it is - nobody did anything illegal at all, that absent the firefight would get anyone in any trouble. I know this, because I made up the scenario myself.
Okay? Absent the firefight, you had some dudes talking shit and walking away. Why do you think it would be okay to kill someone who is just talking shit?
QuoteIt doesn't really matter HOW the first person finds themselves "threatened". You can't really tell me you cannot imagine a scenario where some person could feel threatened by someone else without that other person committing a crime?
It's your thing, not mine. The scenario you came up with doesn't work.
Berkut, I'd advise letting this one go. MBM sounds like he is about to go into "you motherfucker!" mode, and that will only end in tears.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2015, 08:41:23 AM
Berkut, I'd advise letting this one go. MBM sounds like he is about to go into "you motherfucker!" mode, and that will only end in tears.
Just because I think YOU are a huge douchebag doesn't mean I apply that to everyone. Just you. Because you're a douchebag.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 07:03:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2015, 02:05:38 AM
But it is not illegal in and of itself - it migth magically become illegal once the police decide they need to charge someone with something, since in actual society you cannot allow shootouts
But that is pretty much my point. A person can do something that is perfectly legal, but creates in another persons mind a "threat".
?? It doesn't magically become illegal. The person who thinks theres a threat (and is wrong) isn't a-okay to kill someone else just because. They can try to claim self defense, but that doesn't always work.
The legal standard here has nothing to do with a crime being committed. As long as you legitimately believe there is a threat, you have the right, defended vehementl by the NRA in many cases, to shoot someone. There is no legal demand that the person you shoot be engaging in a criminal activity.
Quote
He didn't flash the gun, it was accidentally shown. He never intended to flash anything. You can replace that with C just knowing he has a gun in some fashion - maybe they talked about previously.
You can't do that.
[/quote]
You can't do that? What is that supposed to mean?
Are you saying that if I am carrying a concealed weapon, perfectly legally, and some accident occures such that the weapon is revealed, I've committed a crime?
Or if someone who knows me simply is aware that I have a gun, that is a crime as well?
I rather doubt that.
Quote
It seems concealed is concealed. In your second scenario: C has once again shot a guy who wasn't doing anything to immediately endanger his life,
In your opinion. In his own, he felt he was in immediate danger. That guy was known as a loose cannon. Heck, he even had a previous charge of assault with a deadly weapon that person C knew about. He was known to be dangerous, and in fact person C was truly afraid that he was going to pull out that gun and shoot him.
Quote
and this time the other guy did absolutely nothing wrong. You can't just shoot someone for talking about your mom, or whatever he said in this bizarre scenario.
He shot at him because he was in fear of his life, not for talking about his mom, which of course I made perfectly clear at the beginning.
Quote
QuoteOf course it is - nobody did anything illegal at all, that absent the firefight would get anyone in any trouble. I know this, because I made up the scenario myself.
Okay? Absent the firefight, you had some dudes talking shit and walking away. Why do you think it would be okay to kill someone who is just talking shit?
So you agree that absent the firefight, no crime was committed, which proves my point that in fact the firefight resulted from otherwise perfectly legal activity, and the "crime" only exists because we all actually realize that the logical conclusion of the NRA/gun whacko standards is completely untenable in actual society.
*I* don't think it is ok to kill someone for talking shit, and of course my scenario doesn't have anyone doing that. It has someone lawfully exercising their second amendment right to self protection from someone who had just made it clear to them that they were in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
He was wrong of course, but being wrong is not illegal, especially when the other guy is dead and can't say otherwise - see Zimmerman.
Quote
QuoteIt doesn't really matter HOW the first person finds themselves "threatened". You can't really tell me you cannot imagine a scenario where some person could feel threatened by someone else without that other person committing a crime?
It's your thing, not mine. The scenario you came up with doesn't work.
Copout.
My scenario works just fine - and it is trivial to come up with some other scenario that addresses the issues you are inventing anyway.
Again, you cannot imagine any scenario where some person feels threatened for their life without another person breaking the law?
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2015, 09:28:30 AM
The legal standard here has nothing to do with a crime being committed. As long as you legitimately believe there is a threat, you have the right, defended vehementl by the NRA in many cases, to shoot someone. There is no legal demand that the person you shoot be engaging in a criminal activity.
You have to be in reasonable fear for your life. You can't just shoot someone, say "self defense!" and automatically get away with it.
Quote
You can't do that? What is that supposed to mean?
Are you saying that if I am carrying a concealed weapon, perfectly legally, and some accident occures such that the weapon is revealed, I've committed a crime?
Concealed is concealed. If the gun is showing while you're doing normal things like having a "conversation" with someone, that isn't properly concealed. Texas does NOT allow open carry, so that thing needs to be hidden from sight unless you're going to use it.
QuoteOr if someone who knows me simply is aware that I have a gun, that is a crime as well?
I rather doubt that.
No, that isn't a crime. That also isn't a reason to shoot someone.
QuoteIn your opinion. In his own, he felt he was in immediate danger. That guy was known as a loose cannon. Heck, he even had a previous charge of assault with a deadly weapon that person C knew about. He was known to be dangerous, and in fact person C was truly afraid that he was going to pull out that gun and shoot him.
B is a felon? B can't have handgun full stop in that case, I don't believe. Either way, B still didn't do anything. C can't even see a gun on him, just thinks he has one somehow, then started a fight and shot him without B's gun coming out? I'm not thinking that is going to go too well for C. This change means we're back to both of them doing illegal shit.
QuoteHe shot at him because he was in fear of his life, not for talking about his mom, which of course I made perfectly clear at the beginning.
C is not in reasonable fear for his life. There's no gun, C and B are just talking. C is going to go to prison if he does this.
QuoteSo you agree that absent the firefight, no crime was committed, which proves my point that in fact the firefight resulted from otherwise perfectly legal activity, and the "crime" only exists because we all actually realize that the logical conclusion of the NRA/gun whacko standards is completely untenable in actual society.
There is no crime assuming there aren't any laws against starting fights while carrying (there really might be something about this, but I don't have a CCL or NRA membership vOv) and B doesn't actually flash the gun. There is also no one trying to kill anyone else, so no reason for the guns to come out in the first place. Once C offs B because he feels like B might have a gun stashed somewhere, that becomes something really different.
Quote*I* don't think it is ok to kill someone for talking shit, and of course my scenario doesn't have anyone doing that. It has someone lawfully exercising their second amendment right to self protection from someone who had just made it clear to them that they were in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
In your scenario, B is able to protect himself from C attempting to murder him. Because that is what C is doing. C isn't protecting himself from anything because there's nothing happening until C pulls out a gun and shoots at B.
QuoteHe was wrong of course, but being wrong is not illegal, especially when the other guy is dead and can't say otherwise - see Zimmerman.
Zimmerman was able to say he was directly in danger because his head was getting smashed into the concrete, right? In your scenario, no one is doing anything except talking shit like weirdos (mom jokes in the parking lot :D).
Quote
Copout.
My scenario works just fine - and it is trivial to come up with some other scenario that addresses the issues you are inventing anyway.
I'm not inventing anything, and it isn't a copout. Your scenario doesn't work because C is trying to murder someone.
QuoteAgain, you cannot imagine any scenario where some person feels threatened for their life without another person breaking the law?
Why would it be up to me to come up with the scenario?
Anyway, you're going to have to think of a way where someone is in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death and have to protect themselves from someone to save their (or someone else's) life without the person who is threatening their life actually doing something illegal.
E: Maybe some sort of car accident type deal? Where someone thinks someone else is trying to run them over but...er...their tire blew or something? Not really the same thing, and no firefights, but no one is doing anything illegal there and someone's life is in danger. :hmm:
Oh wow Berkut got someone to argue with him. HIS ARGUMENT IS NO LONGER PERFECT
He wanted gun nuts though. I'm not sure my old SKS and Sig 2022 are nearly heavy duty or numerous enough to qualify me for that status.
I need to take that SKS shooting again sometime. Haven't gone in at least a couple years now.
Nope, you're still a gun nut.
So, what was this thread about? Is it a gun nut thread now? What is the languish definition of a gun nut anyway?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 09:42:19 AM
You have to be in reasonable fear for your life. You can't just shoot someone, say "self defense!" and automatically get away with it.
It seems that "reasonable fear for your life", is pretty vague. This guy chased a man down and stabbed him to death. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html)
This guy shot and killed two guys burglarizing his neighbors house. He was not indicted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0)
They look at each of them individually. I think they have to see if some or parts of their story allow them to claim self defense/whatever you're claiming. Crazy shotgun guy got off because he was defending property, or some shit like that. I think he shot at least one of those dudes in his front yard or something (and another one down the street). I don't know anything at all about Florida's law, but there's a robbery involved again and apparently dude swung a bag of radios at a guy who was chasing him with a knife? What a stupid situation.
Either way, what is your point? Offing someone in a parking lot who isn't doing anything other than responding to you talking shit is a different deal from crazy old guy blasting two guys who robbed a place and whatever that was in Florida after another robbery.
I still have no idea why these things are coming up in a thread about the Bandidos apparently ambushing another biker gang and the cops shooting a few on the side.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2015, 10:56:27 AM
This guy shot and killed two guys burglarizing his neighbors house. He was not indicted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0)
Correction: He shot two guys who ran through his property after they had burglarized his neighbor's house. This was the castle doctrine in effect, not Stand Your Ground.
If a Texas redneck with a gun says "Move and you're dead" while you're on his property, he probably means it. Alas, these these two fine upstanding men did not heed the warning and we lost them :(
btw how is the bolded part relevant to the story? :lol:
QuoteMoments later, after what the police say was a confrontation on Mr. Horn's front lawn, the two men — both illegal immigrants — lay dead on winding Timberline Drive, leaving behind a pillowcase stuffed with jewelry and about $2,000 in cash.
One of them, identified by the police as Hernando Torres, a k a Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, was found across the street beside a sleigh and a Santa cow with a sign, "Have a Moo-ry Christmas," at the house of a Pasadena police officer.
Maybe he said "Moo-ve and you're dead"?
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 11:26:10 AMa sleigh and a Santa cow with a sign, "Have a Moo-ry Christmas,"
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 11:26:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2015, 10:56:27 AM
This guy shot and killed two guys burglarizing his neighbors house. He was not indicted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html?_r=0)
Correction: He shot two guys who ran through his property after they had burglarized his neighbor's house. This was the castle doctrine in effect, not Stand Your Ground.
If a Texas redneck with a gun says "Move and you're dead" while you're on his property, he probably means it. Alas, these these two fine upstanding men did not heed the warning and we lost them :(
btw how is the bolded part relevant to the story? :lol:
QuoteMoments later, after what the police say was a confrontation on Mr. Horn's front lawn, the two men — both illegal immigrants — lay dead on winding Timberline Drive, leaving behind a pillowcase stuffed with jewelry and about $2,000 in cash.
One of them, identified by the police as Hernando Torres, a k a Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, was found across the street beside a sleigh and a Santa cow with a sign, "Have a Moo-ry Christmas," at the house of a Pasadena police officer.
Actually he called 9-11 while they were breaking into the neighbors place and simply said he was going to kill them, as was his right by the new law.
QuoteThe Pasadena emergency operator responded: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, O.K.?"
Mr. Horn said: "But hurry up, man. Catch these guys will you? Cause, I ain't going to let them go."
Mr. Horn then said he would get his shotgun.
The operator said, "No, no." But Mr. Horn said: "I can't take a chance of getting killed over this, O.K.? I'm going to shoot."
The operator told him not to go out with a gun because officers would be arriving.
"O.K.," Mr. Horn said. "But I have a right to protect myself too, sir," adding, "The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it."
The operator said, "You're going to get yourself shot." But Mr. Horn replied, "You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them."
Moments later he said, "Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
After words he claimed they entered the front lawn, but since neither body was on his property that seems questionable. That sounds a lot like a man who is planning to kill two people.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 11:05:31 AM
They look at each of them individually. I think they have to see if some or parts of their story allow them to claim self defense/whatever you're claiming. Crazy shotgun guy got off because he was defending property, or some shit like that. I think he shot at least one of those dudes in his front yard or something (and another one down the street). I don't know anything at all about Florida's law, but there's a robbery involved again and apparently dude swung a bag of radios at a guy who was chasing him with a knife? What a stupid situation.
Either way, what is your point? Offing someone in a parking lot who isn't doing anything other than responding to you talking shit is a different deal from crazy old guy blasting two guys who robbed a place and whatever that was in Florida after another robbery.
I still have no idea why these things are coming up in a thread about the Bandidos apparently ambushing another biker gang and the cops shooting a few on the side.
That reasonable fear of your life can be stretched to absurd situations where you can chase a man down with a knife and stab him to death, and a man can say state to a third party that he simply going to kill two people and get away with it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2015, 11:53:55 AM
After words he claimed they entered the front lawn, but since neither body was on his property that seems questionable.
You can argue the particulars all you like (police seemed to agree that both were on his lawn at some point), but this was a case involving Castle Doctrine, not Stand Your Ground.
QuoteThat sounds a lot like a man who is planning to kill two people.
Yep. But they'd probably be alive had they not decided to cut through his yard.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2015, 08:41:23 AM
Berkut, I'd advise letting this one go. MBM sounds like he is about to go into "you motherfucker!" mode, and that will only end in tears.
Just because I think YOU are a huge douchebag doesn't mean I apply that to everyone. Just you. Because you're a douchebag.
Told you, Berkut. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2015, 11:53:55 AM
After words he claimed they entered the front lawn, but since neither body was on his property that seems questionable.
You can argue the particulars all you like (police seemed to agree that both were on his lawn at some point), but this was a case involving Castle Doctrine, not Stand Your Ground.
QuoteThat sounds a lot like a man who is planning to kill two people.
Yep. But they'd probably be alive had they not decided to cut through his yard.
This is why the sane people find the gun nuts so, well, nutty.
You are actually trying to excuse or mitigate some fellow gun freak murdering two people in cold blood. But hey, he is a fellow gun freak, so we have to pretend like this has something to do with something other than someone deciding they want to shoot a couple people.
When those who seem otherwise sane make excuses for shit like this, it makes the non-gun fanatics wonder just how far the seemingly sane are from those who actually are so entranced by their guns that they will use the excuse of someone on their lawn to get the chance to actually shoot someone.
It is pretty much like seeing some supposedly "normal" Muslim say "Yeah, those women should not have been lined up and shot like that - that is clearly wrong. However, if they had just worn their veils like they should have..."
Goddamn gun nuts. They should all be married then killed.
Here's on for you, Berkut, in which a judge pretty much bemoans your scenario as following the law:
Quote"In 2010, a Florida circuit judge ruled that the law insulated two defendants faced with murder charges in the case of a man who was shot to death with an AK-47. The incident involved a running street battle between affiliates of rival gangs. "What this means, as illustrated by this case, is that two individuals, or even groups, can square off in the middle of a public street, exchange gunfire, and both be absolved of criminal liability if they were reasonably acting in self defense," the judge wrote. "It is very much like the wild West."
The Last Gun By Tom Diaz p. 133 (any typos are mine)
:lol: Okay, Berkut. I was just saying those two shitbags made a fatal error in running through the Texas redneck's lawn. That's all.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
Yep. But they'd probably be alive had they not decided to cut through his yard.
I doubt that. he said he was going to kill them, and that was that. We don't even know if they did cut across his yard. All we know is that he set out to kill them before they had gone anywhere, that he did kill them, and that he claimed that they
had entered his property even though neither was actually on his property when they died.
Of course, this was Texas, and they were Hispanic. I suppose we should be grateful he didn't get awarded a position in the Texas Guard for taking care of the problem of people who were committing the crime of Breathing While Hispanic.
Texans generally seem to get along with Hispandexes pretty well. Dude was pissed that people were burglarizing his next door neighbor's home and bringing crime into his neighborhood and for that I don't blame him. Morally I don't think shooting them was the right thing to do, but I don't think he shot them because of their Hispandexitude.
I think he shot them because he had guns and was terribly excited at the chance to actually get to use them.
When I see people turn around and say things that sound a lot like making an excuse for him, it makes me wonder if a lot more of them are just itching for a reason to exercise their rights to kill another human being with their shiny toys.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 12:55:41 PM
:lol: Okay, Berkut. I was just saying those two shitbags made a fatal error in running through the Texas redneck's lawn. That's all.
Yes, I am sure that is the important lesson to take from that story.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2015, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2015, 08:41:23 AM
Berkut, I'd advise letting this one go. MBM sounds like he is about to go into "you motherfucker!" mode, and that will only end in tears.
Just because I think YOU are a huge douchebag doesn't mean I apply that to everyone. Just you. Because you're a douchebag.
Told you, Berkut. :lol:
:lol: "See bro! This thing that I said might happen didn't happen! I told you so!" You're such a tool.
Hey how about you go back to the thread where you were talking about landing and hangaring F-14 sized combat drones on a destroyer in the next 15 years.
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2015, 01:09:55 PM
I think he shot them because he had guns and was terribly excited at the chance to actually get to use them.
Okay, well you tend to believe what you want to believe. Especially if it fits a certain narrative you're trying to sell.
QuoteWhen I see people turn around and say things that sound a lot like making an excuse for him, it makes me wonder if a lot more of them are just itching for a reason to exercise their rights to kill another human being with their shiny toys.
Man, it's like you're in our minds :o
Is there a difference between gun nuts and gun freaks? And I imagine there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner right? Just want to get my terms correct.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 01:00:25 PM
Texans generally seem to get along with Hispandexes pretty well. Dude was pissed that people were burglarizing his next door neighbor's home and bringing crime into his neighborhood and for that I don't blame him. Morally I don't think shooting them was the right thing to do, but I don't think he shot them because of their Hispandexitude.
grumbler is just being a retard. He also brought up the Michael Jackson case where no-one *really* knows what even happened because everyone involved was dead, probably lying their asses off, or just flat out not talking, instead of Berkuts scenario where we know exactly what happened and aren't trying to figure out how everyone can lie their way out of prosecution as long as their lawyer is good enough. Two guys were able to successfully claim self defense for killing another dude, and a third guy who had brought dead guy got hit with manslaughter. This doesn't mean its a legal firefight. The two "innocent" guys said the other dudes/possibly just the dead dude shot at them first, and the judge believed them.
If you put this like Berk's scenario, this would be like B and his buddy getting self defense protection because they were able to convince a judge that C shot first. That's it.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 20, 2015, 01:21:06 PM
Is there a difference between gun nuts and gun freaks? And I imagine there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner right? Just want to get my terms correct.
Seems like gun nuts and gun freaks would be the same general thing, right? :hmm:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 20, 2015, 01:21:06 PM
Is there a difference between gun nuts and gun freaks? And I imagine there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner right? Just want to get my terms correct.
Seems like gun nuts and gun freaks would be the same general thing, right? :hmm:
I don't know, so many new terms been thrown out here. That's why I ask the experts here in languish.
I still wonder, is there such a thing as a responsible gun owner that is not a gun nut/freak.
A gun nut is someone who gets jacked up about the 2nd amendment. A gun freak is someone who whacks off to cool guns.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 20, 2015, 01:47:11 PM
I still wonder, is there such a thing as a responsible gun owner that is not a gun nut/freak.
No. Every gun owner/nut/freak sits around all day fantasizing about killing people with their shiny "toy". Or something.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 20, 2015, 01:21:06 PM
Is there a difference between gun nuts and gun freaks? And I imagine there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner right? Just want to get my terms correct.
Of course there are responsible gun owners. I own a gun.
You don't see me making excuses for people shooting each other though.
What is your point lusty - that talking about non-responsible gun owners somehow implies that there cannot be responsible ones?
Who is making excuses?
You.
Your "yeah...but..." response to stories about gun d-bags murdering people.
No point, just wanting to keep up with the polite conversation. ^_^
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2015, 01:55:00 PM
You.
Your "yeah...but..." response to stories about gun d-bags murdering people.
Incorrect.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 01:12:38 PM
:lol: "See bro! This thing that I said might happen didn't happen! I told you so!" You're such a tool.
Hey how about you go back to the thread where you were talking about landing and hangaring F-14 sized combat drones on a destroyer in the next 15 years.
An obvious
ad hom :w00t:, but no swear words :(
Blatant strawman :showoff: though, so you have that going for you. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2015, 01:50:15 PM
A gun nut is someone who gets jacked up about the 2nd amendment. A gun freak is someone who whacks off to cool guns.
I like these definitions.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 12:55:41 PM
:lol: Okay, Berkut. I was just saying those two shitbags made a fatal error in running through the Texas redneck's lawn. That's all.
He seems to have made the decision to kill these two people before he even went out side. That makes it premeditated murder. I think that makes you a bigger shitbag then a burglar. I mean, Bilbo was a burglar and he seemed okay. He didn't shoot to guys in the back.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2015, 02:30:25 PM
An obvious ad hom :w00t:, but no swear words :( Blatant strawman :showoff: though, so you have that going for you. :thumbsup:
All that and what you were congratulating yourself for still hasn't happened, Mr. UCAVs On Destroyers.
I do like how you knew so little about what you were talking about that discussing the actual things that will exist and would be usable in your timeframe is a strawman argument. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2015, 03:00:31 PM
He seems to have made the decision to kill these two people before he even went out side. That makes it premeditated murder. I think that makes you a bigger shitbag then a burglar.
Hey now, I wasn't involved in that shooting.
The cops are saying one of the weapons found was an AK-47. Where the hell do you stash an AK-47 on a motorcycle?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi715.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww156%2FTabascored%2FRifleCase.jpg&hash=9af0cd61edfa3d5acd8dee21fea8ea66e7ae2a19) (http://s715.photobucket.com/user/Tabascored/media/RifleCase.jpg.html)
:w00t:
:D Very nice. Subtle. Clean. You'd miss it if you weren't looking for it.
Needs more rivets.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
The cops are saying one of the weapons found was an AK-47. Where the hell do you stash an AK-47 on a motorcycle?
A question folks in North Marseille answered a long time ago.
Now that I think of it, Paris, Texas and now
Marseille Waco, Texas. :hmm:
Makes sense. :)
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
The cops are saying one of the weapons found was an AK-47. Where the hell do you stash an AK-47 on a motorcycle?
An AK-47? And only 9 dead? I guess it was not used right? Well, at least not properly.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
The cops are saying one of the weapons found was an AK-47. Where the hell do you stash an AK-47 on a motorcycle?
I haven't seen the weapon in question, but they do make AK pistols that are fairly compact compared to the rifle.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southernohiogun.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fcache%2F1%2Fimage%2F5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d%2FA%2FK%2FAK-M92PV.jpg&hash=aa88abeee48beb142e7977e0d9a9cef5f488968a)
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 20, 2015, 10:55:46 AMWhat is the languish definition of a gun nut anyway?
Basically, we all qualify except Razgovory, who is barred by law from operating firearms or heavy machinery.
I'm only nutty about the Swedish K and the main batteries if the Yamato and Nagato classes.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2015, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 20, 2015, 10:55:46 AMWhat is the languish definition of a gun nut anyway?
Basically, we all qualify except Razgovory, who is barred by law from operating firearms or heavy machinery.
Well crap, that's like the third definition in this thread. <_<
Also, I'm sure some nuts here just have not been diagnosed, Raz was smarter than the rest of us and got professional help.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
The cops are saying one of the weapons found was an AK-47. Where the hell do you stash an AK-47 on a motorcycle?
I haven't seen the weapon in question, but they do make AK pistols that are fairly compact compared to the rifle.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southernohiogun.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fcache%2F1%2Fimage%2F5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d%2FA%2FK%2FAK-M92PV.jpg&hash=aa88abeee48beb142e7977e0d9a9cef5f488968a)
I don't care for those. I'd rather have an Uzi.
All you gun nuts realize you are putting yourselves at an immediate disadvantage, right?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 20, 2015, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 20, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
The cops are saying one of the weapons found was an AK-47. Where the hell do you stash an AK-47 on a motorcycle?
I haven't seen the weapon in question, but they do make AK pistols that are fairly compact compared to the rifle.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southernohiogun.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fcache%2F1%2Fimage%2F5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d%2FA%2FK%2FAK-M92PV.jpg&hash=aa88abeee48beb142e7977e0d9a9cef5f488968a)
I don't care for those. I'd rather have an Uzi.
I'd actually like to have one but only if it had a stock on it. Unfortunately that's illegal unless you buy a $200 stamp for it and jump through a bunch of hoops.