|
Effectronica posted:It would be a lot easier for liberals to support gun rights if the people who advocated for guns didn't talk about how some people have lives that are worth protecting, and others are less valuable than property. Makes them look like they're racist, sexist, etc. I consider myself pretty far-left and I do support gun rights, but I'm not very outspoken about it at all because I want nothing to do with the sick paranoid scumbags who conflate the right to bear arms with the right to essentially brandish them at all times and use them on whomever they please with minimal legal consequences.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:But he was acquitted anyway, either because the jury really hates druggie vandal squatters or because they believed his claim that Devine, who was very much hosed up on drugs, tried to resist his good-faith attempt to evict them from his house. Burgarello owns an alarm company and has been a pretty big fish in Nevada for a while. It's a possibility his money and connections helped him out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:One of them survived and testified. You should spend more time keeping up with the thread and less demonstrating your ignorance and weak burns. Okay, so it's a homeless dude vs a known member of the community; the homeless dude is always going to lose that. You're right that the impression I got was that both of them were dead! It doesn't change much about what happened, though, does it? I haven't edited anything though, so I'm not sure where you got that impression from? I mean, considering that literally 99% of your post history is defending guns and police, and that my fuckup is literally right there in the post you quoted.... twodot posted:This is certainly possible, but I think you're the first person to suggest this. Let's say he is lying, then he is a murderer who got away with the crime, what do you want to discuss about that? (Also one of them is not dead, and we did indeed ask them what happened.) If I am the first person to suggest that maybe this was a deliberate killing, why was he charged (and, of course, found not guilty) of first-degree murder? Clearly there is someone other than me who thinks that "straight up deliberate killing" is not an unlikely scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Sure, I do. I also don't think there's any need whatsoever for police to carry a fixed blade knife. Theres a variety of better tools, including tools with blades, that are much more useful. Added benefit of not having a drat fixed blade knife hanging off you if you're in close quarters with someone. Yup that's totally the argument you made that I called you out on.... hobotrashcanfires posted:Hey, militarized police chat needs it's comic relief ! But hey now you can settle for being wrong about the utility of free high-quality knives! I will give you this though: hobotrashcanfires posted:Added benefit of not having a drat fixed blade knife hanging off you if you're in close quarters with someone. If someone is that incompetent with knives or stowing their kit they probably shouldn't be handling knives... or guns for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its kind of amusing to watch this thread go from "never call the police" to "you don't need a gun that's what police are there for" without even pausing to take a breath. Police are useful if you need people dead but don't want to go through the hassle (legal fees, court dates, buying ammunition) of doing it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:If I am the first person to suggest that maybe this was a deliberate killing, why was he charged (and, of course, found not guilty) of first-degree murder? Clearly there is someone other than me who thinks that "straight up deliberate killing" is not an unlikely scenario. quote:homeless dude vs a known member of the community; the homeless dude is always going to lose that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If someone is that incompetent with knives or stowing their kit they probably shouldn't be handling knives... or guns for that matter. I'm glad that we've changed your mind about police use of guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Eek. He was mad as hell and he just wasn't going to take this vandalism lying down anymore, somebody was just gonna hafta pay. That bit of tough talk made it sound like he went in after them - he knew they were in there because someone phoned him and told him - with the intention of shooting them. Apparently the stand your ground in Nevada says you can't do that: What's weird is Waco PR knows that the guy said all these things, yet it's still not picking a fight if you say "I am going to go to this place and shoot some people" and then you do, as long as you would have had a right to go to that place and check for scuffs on the doorframes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Yes, I know. The point wasn't that he was found not guilty, it's that he was charged with first-degree murder in the first place. If someone did not think there was the possibility it was deliberate, first-degree murder would not have been a potential charge!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:She certainly did, and it didn't sound very good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
I think the part where he shoots unarmed prone people he had just awoken in an abandoned building in the middle of the night is the part that makes him an aggressor, not "bein' mad"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I consider myself pretty far-left and I do support gun rights, but I'm not very outspoken about it at all because I want nothing to do with the sick paranoid scumbags who conflate the right to bear arms with the right to essentially brandish them at all times and use them on whomever they please with minimal legal consequences. This is kinda where I am. Gun rights are something that I support but it always seems in reality they are only for certain people regardless of how aggressive, reckless, or irresponsible they are while for others even holding a toy in public is risking a public execution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:Okay, so it's a homeless dude vs a known member of the community; the homeless dude is always going to lose that. You're right that the impression I got was that both of them were dead! It doesn't change much about what happened, though, does it? What does my post history have to do with your fuckup?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Yes I know. And I acknowledged it in an earlier post. He did say say some bad things years ago (curious he would care so much if he had effectively abandoned the property like some claim). Was he still in the same state of mind? Is your theory that he waited years to plot his revenge? Does being angry at someone who destroys your property suddenly make you the aggressor? Sounds like he wasn't the initial person to act inappropriately. I have no idea. There's a good chance the jury, who understand Nevada law, actually examined all of the evidence and heard all the principals testify about this one firsthand, know rather a bit more about the case than I do. All I've got is my own personal ideas about when it's okay to shoot someone and when it's not. If I knew there were a hobo living in my shed, I'd be torn between hoofing the door and saying "Hey get the gently caress out of my shed', calling the cops to have the guy kicked out or just plugging the garden hose into a gap in the roof and waiting. VitalSigns posted:I think the part where he shoots unarmed prone people he had just awoken in an abandoned building in the middle of the night is the part that makes him an aggressor, not "bein' mad" That certainly sounds like being an "initial aggressor" to me. I don't think anger at the destruction of my property at some point in the past justifies going there with the intention of killing the next motherfucker who pisses in my precious cottage, even if the guy I find doing it had eaten a whole bushel of asparagus first and was acting most inappropriately when I caught him. But again, that's me, some other guy in some other state did something different and the jury said that was a-okay so 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think the part where he shoots unarmed prone people he had just awoken in an abandoned building in the middle of the night is the part that makes him an aggressor, not "bein' mad" You're going to ignore the evidence (his testimony, the location if the flashlight) that the deceased was the one who made the first aggressive move?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Turning on a light in the dark, what an unreasonable response to being suddenly awoken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:19
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I consider myself pretty far-left and I do support gun rights, but I'm not very outspoken about it at all because I want nothing to do with the sick paranoid scumbags who conflate the right to bear arms with the right to essentially brandish them at all times and use them on whomever they please with minimal legal consequences. When you consider how hunting, pest control in rural areas, etc. are never advanced as valid reasons to own a gun (the only time I've even seen them mentioned was some guy in GBS ranting about how hunters can't be trusted and would sell the real gunowners out), and that the primary reasoning is about killing people (or rather "self-defense", which is very likely to be lethal when you shoot someone), there seems to be an ulterior motive at play here. Going outside of the internet, you never hear this kind of reasoning in person, so what seems to be the case is that you have this shrinking minority of people who are primarily focused on paranoia and see guns as a way to stave off their paranoid fantasies, and they dominate the conversation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Turning on a light in the dark, what an unreasonable response to being suddenly awoken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Making sudden moves while being held at gunpoint is stupid and will probably get you killed.Effectronica posted:Going outside of the internet, you never hear this kind of reasoning in person The tumblrification of the gun control argument. Literally triggered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Too bad it can easily be misinterpretted. Probably a good idea to not put yourself in such a situation where it can be misinterpreted. Like knocking on the door of a house for help after a car crash or checking out the shed at the house you just bought. All things that are good ideas not to do because they can be misinterpreted as something worth killing over apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Did they even know they were at gunpoint? It was dark, and they were had just woken up, and the accused's own statements didn't include saying he had a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
The interesting thing is that if we take the interpretation that he shot in self-defense, then he would still have been better off without the gun, since he wouldn't have killed anyone, and just not having it in his hand would have greatly increased the chance that everyone survives. But of course, this is unreasonable, as you should assume that everyone is itching for a chance to kill you. That is, there was nothing wrong with what he did because paranoia is more reasonable than not being paranoid.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Too bad it can easily be misinterpretted. Probably a good idea to not put yourself in such a situation where it can be misinterpreted. So if I'm understanding your argument correctly, if you don't want to be shot you need to be absolutely sure any abandoned building you seek shelter in is actually abandoned and not just a honeypot for gun wielding old men. Live and learn I guess, er... well I guess, die and face the consequences of ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:The tumblrification of the gun control argument. Literally triggered. What is this dumb poo poo you just posted?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The interesting thing is that if we take the interpretation that he shot in self-defense, then he would still have been better off without the gun, since he wouldn't have killed anyone, and just not having it in his hand would have greatly increased the chance that everyone survives. But of course, this is unreasonable, as you should assume that everyone is itching for a chance to kill you. That is, there was nothing wrong with what he did because paranoia is more reasonable than not being paranoid. Personal safety is paramount, killing a few people here and there is the risk we take for peace of mind. Lives aren't more important than the feeling of safety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Like knocking on the door of a house for help after a car crash or checking out the shed at the house you just bought. All things that are good ideas not to do because they can be misinterpreted as something worth killing over apparently. I'm not sure what the shed case is referring to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So if I'm understanding your argument correctly, if you don't want to be shot you need to be absolutely sure any abandoned building you seek shelter in is actually abandoned and not just a honeypot for gun wielding old men. Live and learn I guess, er... well I guess, die and face the consequences of ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Are you referring to the case where the drunk driver knocked on the door hours after fleeing help at the scene of the crash? Guy was stupid and jumpy and I have no problem with him being convicted once it was clear he had fired through a door. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/01/_confused_west_virginia_man_kills_new_african_american_neighbor.html quote:Rodney Bruce Black, 62, told authorities that he thought his victims were breaking into a building he owned. However, although the building is on land that once belonged to Black’s family, that was not the case anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Are you referring to the case where the drunk driver knocked on the door hours after fleeing help at the scene of the crash? Guy was stupid and jumpy and I have no problem with him being convicted once it was clear he had fired through a door. http://wvrecord.com/news/267724-wrongful-death-suit-filed-against-cabell-man-who-shot-killed-new-neighbor
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What is this dumb poo poo you just posted? Effectronica posted:Going outside of the internet, you never hear this kind of reasoning in person, so what seems to be the case is that you have this shrinking minority of people who are primarily focused on paranoia and see guns as a way to stave off their paranoid fantasies, and they dominate the conversation. Are you a stranger to this phenomenon, Radbot?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/01/_confused_west_virginia_man_kills_new_african_american_neighbor.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Like knocking on the door of a house for help after a car crash or checking out the shed at the house you just bought. All things that are good ideas not to do because they can be misinterpreted as something worth killing over apparently. Interesting those people are either convicted of, or currently charged with, murder. Its because its not a directly analogous situation. When arguing over whether the system is broken because "x" is allowed, pointing out that "y" shouldn't be legal (when it isn't) doesn't really bear much of a relevance .
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:And why exactly are you citing these cases? One was found to be unreasonable (hell the shooter claimed to have fired by accident) the other is going to trial. Neither seem to have made credible claims they feared for their lives. What relevance does that have to this case- they didn't misinterpret threatening actions, they just apparently shot people. When you shoot people because you are recklessly exercising your property rights, sometimes you kill honest people instead of degenerate meth-heads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Going outside of the internet, you never hear this kind of reasoning in person, so what seems to be the case is that you have this shrinking minority of people who are primarily focused on paranoia and see guns as a way to stave off their paranoid fantasies, and they dominate the conversation. I have never been to a gun show where I have not overheard these sort of paranoid, usually racially-tinged, conversations. It's sort of a requirement, along with people selling overpriced trailmix and at least one guy selling copies of the Turner Diaries who is oddly preoccupied with the numbers 14 and 88.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:If I am the first person to suggest that maybe this was a deliberate killing, why was he charged (and, of course, found not guilty) of first-degree murder? Clearly there is someone other than me who thinks that "straight up deliberate killing" is not an unlikely scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Devor posted:When you shoot people because you are recklessly exercising your property rights, sometimes you kill honest people instead of degenerate meth-heads. Instead of drawing such a strained comparison why not compare the actual facts? Am I somehow compelled to defend the mistaken sniper because I think someone should be able to enter property they actually own without it being interpreted as an aggressive act?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:55
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:"Recklessly exercising your property rights" aparently covers a lot of ground. Including, apparently, rights one no longer has. Ah, yes, someone is startled when you barge into the room they're renting from you, and they grope for their glasses, and you shoot them. This is justified because they might have been reaching for a gun, and kept it carefully hidden from the trio of security cameras.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:"Recklessly exercising your property rights" aparently covers a lot of ground. Including, apparently, rights one no longer has. The West Virginia killer was protecting perceived property rights by shooting people going into what he thought was his shed. The Nevada killer was protecting perceived property rights by confronting squatters in his vacant duplex. Recklessness as a legal term seems extremely appropriate in reference to the Nevada killer. Excerpt from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_%28law%29 quote:Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence. In both cases, the killers were reckless, and were acting to protect property rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:You should be cautious when breaking and entering, yes. So you think it's reasonable to expect to be killed for breaking and entering a building you assumed was abandoned. What if your child went exploring and found and abandoned building, when they're shot for entering an abandoned property illegally you'll just tell your wife "that's the consequence of ignorance"? Is that what a reasonable person will think when that happens?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you think it's reasonable to expect to be killed for breaking and entering a building you assumed was abandoned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:22
|
|