(01-09-2023, 01:40 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get it. Once you've determined that the threat requires deadly force, I think unloading a clip is perfectly acceptable. I didn't watch the longer video, but it takes no time at all to unload a clip. You're taught 2 in the chest, one in the head under perfect circumstances... with adrenaline and a real-life threat, 9 rounds probably feels a lot like 2.
Cops use 2 in the chest because they miss the first shot because of adrenaline, unless they are good shots and experienced. You also don't stop firing until the threat is neutralized. You could definitely empty a clip and not realize it if you weren't experienced.
(01-09-2023, 01:59 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]With a continuing, advancing threat I will agree with you. You have to watch the whole video though. This guy was excessive by any definition of the word. Then the dude apparently just leaves the scene.
I didn't watch it but have read about it. While excessive by the laws, I say if you bring a gun with you to a crime that means you are going to use it and that should be attempted murder at minimum. If a bystander takes you out, then no problem (you better make sure they are committing a crime though).
He's dead now, so no medical expenses that the state will have to pay. The guy can't be sued for all his medical bills, loss of work, etc. His family may try to sue but potential earnings is probably less than medical would be. He's probably going to have some issues but if he was going to end it like that he should have just not stopped firing and he wouldn't have issues.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Under Texas law it appears the shooter was justified. The perp who assumed room temperature was a seasoned crook who did a short prison sentence after pleading down charges when him and an accomplice murdered a cell phone store owner in front of his wife, and others, while robbing it in 2013.
https://abc13.com/houston-taqueria-shoot.../12681554/
(01-10-2023, 07:12 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Under Texas law it appears the shooter was justified. The perp who assumed room temperature was a seasoned crook who did a short prison sentence after pleading down charges when him and an accomplice murdered a cell phone store owner in front of his wife, and others, while robbing it in 2013.
https://abc13.com/houston-taqueria-shoot.../12681554/
While I fully support self defense I cannot in good conscience approve of that last shot. Once the guy is down and you take the time to pick up his gun then you don't shoot him again while he's not moving.
(01-10-2023, 11:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2023, 07:12 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Under Texas law it appears the shooter was justified. The perp who assumed room temperature was a seasoned crook who did a short prison sentence after pleading down charges when him and an accomplice murdered a cell phone store owner in front of his wife, and others, while robbing it in 2013.
https://abc13.com/houston-taqueria-shoot.../12681554/
While I fully support self defense I cannot in good conscience approve of that last shot. Once the guy is down and you take the time to pick up his gun then you don't shoot him again while he's not moving.
Chances are, he didn't feel that last shot..
(01-10-2023, 11:29 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2023, 11:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]While I fully support self defense I cannot in good conscience approve of that last shot. Once the guy is down and you take the time to pick up his gun then you don't shoot him again while he's not moving.
Chances are, he didn't feel that last shot..
Perhaps, but still, stuff like that...the optics give the anti-gun people something to run with.
Isn't it funny that they use the wrong example of 11, like this guy is WAY off base. A 24-year-old should not be having sex with a 14-year-old. It's gays who are pushing that law, because they don't think pederasty is a big deal.
(01-10-2023, 10:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it funny that they use the wrong example of 11, like this guy is WAY off base. A 24-year-old should not be having sex with a 14-year-old. It's gays who are pushing that law, because they don't think pederasty is a big deal.
And it's still illegal in CA. There are fines and jailtime.
(01-10-2023, 09:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2023, 10:37 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]I can not for the life of me work out how you came to that conclusion.
https://twitter.com/HD_SILVERZ71/status/...79/photo/1
I meant how Copycat concluded that Marty was advocating that 24 year old men can have sex with 14 year old children
(01-10-2023, 10:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it funny that they use the wrong example of 11, like this guy is WAY off base. A 24-year-old should not be having sex with a 14-year-old. It's gays who are pushing that law, because they don't think pederasty is a big deal.
you come across as really disliking gay people.
Oh [BLEEP]. This is common knowledge in the homosexual community. Can you progressive types win any argument without strawmanning? Geez.
Let me put it another way, since you want to cast everything in the worst possible light (when it's convenient)... it's the same reason why most people don't get upset about a lady teacher sleeping with a teenager. It's considered normal. The gays feel that way about teen boys. Personally, I think it's wrong across the board. I'm tired of our society preaching "if it feels good, do it." It's not a bad thing for humans to want to overcome our primal urges, and we would be better with a little bit more discipline.
(01-10-2023, 11:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2023, 10:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it funny that they use the wrong example of 11, like this guy is WAY off base. A 24-year-old should not be having sex with a 14-year-old. It's gays who are pushing that law, because they don't think pederasty is a big deal.
And it's still illegal in CA. There are fines and jailtime.
Sure... if the judge wants to rule that way. This law is specifically designed to grant more leeway to the LGTBQ+AARP community.
(01-10-2023, 12:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2023, 11:29 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Chances are, he didn't feel that last shot..
Perhaps, but still, stuff like that...the optics give the anti-gun people something to run with.
Just saw a headline on MSN referring to the shooter as a "vigilante".
(01-11-2023, 09:08 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2023, 12:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps, but still, stuff like that...the optics give the anti-gun people something to run with.
Just saw a headline on MSN referring to the shooter as a "vigilante".
Based on his actions he might've crossed that line.
(01-10-2023, 10:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it funny that they use the wrong example of 11, like this guy is WAY off base. A 24-year-old should not be having sex with a 14-year-old. It's gays who are pushing that law, because they don't think pederasty is a big deal.
While "half your age + 7 before 40" is the rule it really ought to be the Law.
(01-10-2023, 11:49 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Oh [BLEEP]. This is common knowledge in the homosexual community. Can you progressive types win any argument without strawmanning? Geez.
Let me put it another way, since you want to cast everything in the worst possible light (when it's convenient)... it's the same reason why most people don't get upset about a lady teacher sleeping with a teenager. It's considered normal. The gays feel that way about teen boys. Personally, I think it's wrong across the board. I'm tired of our society preaching "if it feels good, do it." It's not a bad thing for humans to want to overcome our primal urges, and we would be better with a little bit more discipline.
(01-10-2023, 11:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]And it's still illegal in CA. There are fines and jailtime.
Sure... if the judge wants to rule that way. This law is specifically designed to grant more leeway to the LGTBQ+AARP community.
No, the fines and jailtime remain mandatory, as I understand. Only the lifetime registration becomes optional for the judge.
(01-11-2023, 10:40 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2023, 09:08 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Just saw a headline on MSN referring to the shooter as a "vigilante".
Based on his actions he might've crossed that line.
(01-10-2023, 10:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it funny that they use the wrong example of 11, like this guy is WAY off base. A 24-year-old should not be having sex with a 14-year-old. It's gays who are pushing that law, because they don't think pederasty is a big deal.
While "half your age + 7 before 40" is the rule it really ought to be the Law.
"Half your age plus seven" is a really good rule, don't know about the "under 40" part. Not sure I'd like the government telling 26 year olds that they can't bang 40 year olds; both would clearly be adults with experience. As long as both parties are 21 and up, I say no rules. If either party is under 21, half your age plus 7.
(01-10-2023, 11:40 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2023, 09:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/HD_SILVERZ71/status/...79/photo/1
I meant how Copycat concluded that Marty was advocating that 24 year old men can have sex with 14 year old children
(01-10-2023, 10:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it funny that they use the wrong example of 11, like this guy is WAY off base. A 24-year-old should not be having sex with a 14-year-old. It's gays who are pushing that law, because they don't think pederasty is a big deal.
you come across as really disliking gay people.
He seemed to be defending the law, I thought it a valid question. I don’t know, perhaps not. I haven’t been sleeping well these days.
I'm definitely not defending the law. Just saying who is advocating for it and their justification.