If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

#145

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Also -- as Bhurzum observed, Nyugen apparently had some advanced training. Which likely also included hands-on training. Prosecutor will discover that, and in trial will ask, 'Why didn't you just use your non-lethal [Jujistsu, whatever] skills?'

I get the frustration of thugs robbing your store repeatedly with impunity, and I shed no tears for thugs. But it'd be better to read the state statute before getting charged under it, or to watch some of those self-defense videos before you're the star of one.

jewjitsu.jpg: (51.34 KiB) Downloaded 14 times

#144

Service Dog wrote: ↑
Bhurzum wrote: ↑
Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:36 pm
"plug & tug"
(It's a taught technique in the military)
& on YouTube !

Pounce tugs, (if you want them)

That was quite entertaining.

Also, as a side-note, the dude who designed the knife is the spitting-image of a guy who used to work for me in the garrison detention facility - shave the beard, throw him into uniform and bam! I would swear it was the same guy! The likeness is uncanny.

#143

Bhurzum wrote: ↑
Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:36 pm
"plug & tug"
(It's a taught technique in the military)

& on YouTube !

Pounce tugs, (if you want them)

#142

May have linked this before, don't care. Awesome cover by one of the most under-rated voices in music!

:dance: :clap:

#141

Why was she allowed behind the wheel let alone to treat people in the ICU? Traveling nurse, 37, who killed six in horror 90mph LA crash has been involved in THIRTEEN prior road accidents and has a 'profound' history of mental health issues

#140

Also -- as Bhurzum observed, Nyugen apparently had some advanced training. Which likely also included hands-on training. Prosecutor will discover that, and in trial will ask, 'Why didn't you just use your non-lethal [Jujistsu, whatever] skills?'

I get the frustration of thugs robbing your store repeatedly with impunity, and I shed no tears for thugs. But it'd be better to read the state statute before getting charged under it, or to watch some of those self-defense videos before you're the star of one.

#139

Service Dog wrote: ↑
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ I think Nguyen loses, however, as it was shoplifting, not forcible entry into an occupied dwelling, in which case
Everything you're saying makes sense. But if I were his lawyer... I wouldn't say 'Open & shut case! He's guilty!'. I'd be looking for a defense in here:

NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

3. As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

....

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265; 2015, 1781)

NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required; rebuttable presumption under certain circumstances.

1. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, is not sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

2. There is a rebuttable presumption that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge if the person killing:

(a) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was entering unlawfully and with force, or attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another;

(b) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence; and

(c) Did not provoke the person who was killed.

3. As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

(b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.

[1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]—(NRS A 2015, 1782)
Wearing robber masks might make the crucial difference between shoplifting and "a surreptitious manner". Jumping over the counter might cross the line from shoplifting to "a tumultuous manner".

I'm not denying that the shopkeeper becoming a test case-- would be ruinous for the poor guy... even-if he eventually prevails.

As a store is not a "habitation", the automatic justification of deadly force does not obtain.

Nyugen's defense must rely on establishing his reasonable fear that death was potentially imminent. That's undermined by his nonchalant handling of two dudes in balaclavas, even after they stole shit. The strongest argument is, that when the dude abruptly jumped the counter, that presented an immediate threat and a sudden change of dynamic. But that's also undermined by the fact that the dude didn't charge Nyugen, but rather started grabbing merchandise. And the prosecutor will play that video in super slow-motion. His best hope is either the DA not wanting to touch it, or jury nullification.

Nyugen was also a complete retard to make public statements. (Yes, there is a left tail to the Asian IQ bell curve.)

Had he immediately trespassed them out of the store, even with a collar in one hand and the knife in the other, he'd be in a much better situation now. Had they physically attacked him at that point, he could justifiably stab away.

But seriously, carry a gun, and if anyone comes in wearing a ski mask, draw on them -- low ready is fine -- and order them to leave. Worst trouble you're facing is a brandishing charge. And unless they're actually just returning from the plastic surgeon's, I guarantee they won't be filing a complaint.

#138

Nancy Pelosi 's son, age 53, still breastfeeds.

#137

A toast

#136

Reportedly, the FBI raided Trump’s home at Mara Lago, broke into his safe, and removed materials. It has been suggested that the Justice Department is investigating whether Trump walked out of the White House with box loads of classified documents. If this is the case, the Justice Department might be in trouble here. The ultimate classification (or declassification) authority is the President. He can grab a document, state it’s declassified, and hand it over to The NY Times…totally legal in my view. The military and federal agencies never want their stuff declassified, but presidents do it constantly. This could be interesting.
The question would be, does the president have to follow normal declassification protocol? Is it illegal if he doesn’t?

#135

Facknell, I never knew this:

Her father had been a British spy during World War Two. Her mother was the daughter of the German Nobel laureate, Max Born, and had fled with her family when the Nazis came to power in 1933.

#134

#133

Olivia Neutron-Bomb dead at 72.

#132

so he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article so he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article so he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article
The earth is a spheroid :twatson: That is a fact. No matter how much someone believes their opinion that the earth is flat, it doesn't make it so. Only a total fucking idiot would argue that.
:cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc: :cdc:

#131

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

The trespassing & robbery was ongoing, so I think he's in the clear on "in the spirit of revenge"

"NRS 200.060 When killing punished as murder. The killing must be the result of that sudden, violent impulse of passion supposed to be irresistible; for, if there should appear to have been an interval between the assault or provocation given and the killing, sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and punished as murder.

[1911 C&P § 124; RL § 6389; NCL § 10071]"

#130

:nin: jet

#129

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ I think Nguyen loses, however, as it was shoplifting, not forcible entry into an occupied dwelling, in which case

Everything you're saying makes sense. But if I were his lawyer... I wouldn't say 'Open & shut case! He's guilty!'. I'd be looking for a defense in here:

NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

3. As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

....

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265; 2015, 1781)

NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required; rebuttable presumption under certain circumstances.

1. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, is not sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

2. There is a rebuttable presumption that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge if the person killing:

(a) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was entering unlawfully and with force, or attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another;

(b) Knew or reasonably believed that the person who was killed was committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence; and

(c) Did not provoke the person who was killed.

3. As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

(b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.

[1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]—(NRS A 2015, 1782)

Wearing robber masks might make the crucial difference between shoplifting and "a surreptitious manner". Jumping over the counter might cross the line from shoplifting to "a tumultuous manner".

I'm not denying that the shopkeeper becoming a test case-- would be ruinous for the poor guy... even-if he eventually prevails.

#128

I think Service Dog is referring to the line before the quoted one.

against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence

Where crime of violence is defined as the following:

any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

IANAL, but it seems like a convoluted way of saying even if it's argued the person who gets killed was attempting to harm the property and not the person inside the property that the use of lethal force was still legal. Regardless it's only applicable to homes and cars.

Dude had better hope the jury has the same idea of reasonable fear as he does.

#127

DW Adams wrote: ↑
Service Dog wrote: ↑
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Unless you just put it there it could be a browser thing. That is why asked someone else if they could see the link.
This has been an insightful tour of your mind.

No it hasn't. As usual you haven't learned a fucking thing much less gained insight.
Ok. Our perspectives are too divergent. I'll defer to a disinterested third-party Solomon. Either there's a tiny blue arrow there, or there isn't.

But... remember what's At Stake: Either you're unfit parse evidence presented plainly in front of you... Or else I'm peddling "Bullshit Dog" "tricks" etc.

► Show Spoiler

What an odd argument.

He got called out on a lie, doubled down on another lie, and when asked to show the link he claimed to have he started posting more bullshit.
So he posts a picture of a little blue arrow that wasn't in the unlinked article. A childish, clearly dishonest attempt at confusing the whole argument.

#126

Service Dog wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 07, 2022 4:45 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ you told him to lie more carefully so it wasn't so easy for a bad person like me to show what a liar he is. I'm sure it was embarrassing for you to see your friend telling such transparent lies.
This is not a fair & honest characterization.

And I won't pretend that both free thoughtpolice & John are equally culpable. Nope. That would be False Equivalence. John tried to mend a mess in good faith. & ftp responded by compounding the mess in bad faith.

I think this is an iteration of the 'derangement syndrome'-- when the effteepeez of the world feel so justified in the their contempt... that they give themselves permission to abandon minimum standards of how to treat people whose opinions differ from theirs.

I understand the upside to me Not posting this, taking a higher road.

But I'm not out of line for posting this.
Decorum does not oblige me to refrain from calling-out bad behavior.

I think this is an iteration of the 'derangement syndrome'-- when the effteepeez of the world feel so justified in the their contempt... that they give themselves permission to abandon minimum standards of how to treat people whose opinions differ from theirs.

There is a difference of opinion then there are obvious facts. The earth is a spheroid. That is a fact. No matter how much someone believes their opinion that the earth is flat, it doesn't make it so. Only a total fucking idiot would argue that.
Now instead of deflecting and spamming, and outright lying now you are pulling a passive aggressive ftp is being mean to me and I am the well behaved victim of his bad behavior.
Get fucked.

#125

Service Dog wrote: ↑
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Unless you just put it there it could be a browser thing. That is why asked someone else if they could see the link.
This has been an insightful tour of your mind.

No it hasn't. As usual you haven't learned a fucking thing much less gained insight.
Ok. Our perspectives are too divergent. I'll defer to a disinterested third-party Solomon. Either there's a tiny blue arrow there, or there isn't.

But... remember what's At Stake: Either you're unfit parse evidence presented plainly in front of you... Or else I'm peddling "Bullshit Dog" "tricks" etc.

► Show Spoiler

What an odd argument.

#124

Service Dog wrote: ↑ I think it sez you can use deadly force to protect property... in your habitation or car... if a felony is being committed at the time.

It reads

... necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation [against] any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

This is similar to CA law, where

PC 459 wrote:Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel,... floating home,... railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach,... any house car, ... inhabited camper, ... vehicle ... when the doors are locked, aircraft, ... or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.

and

PC 198.5 wrote:Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Ergo, if anyone is breaking into your house, car, tent, etc., there's an automatic presumption of imminent death or great bodily harm, so deadly force is justified.

I think Nguyen loses, however, as it was shoplifting, not forcible entry into an occupied dwelling, in which case

It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

#123

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Deadly force may only be used when you have a reasonable belief an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm exists. In general, use of force must always be proportional.

Below is the Nevada law. I think it sez you can use deadly force to protect property... in your habitation or car... if a felony is being committed at the time.

(But I'm just posting a link I read earlier. Haven't gone back to double-check. But if that-much is indeed true... then is there some local precedent protecting a proprietor 's store as-well? I suspect there is, but I don't have any evidence to back-up my hunch.)

And... I'd discourage testing the strength of that protection against a prosecutor with an agenda).

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200 ... S200Sec120

#122

Bhurzum wrote: ↑
Well, if that's the case, I hope our hypothetical rapist conducted a risk assessment, familiarised himself with relevant COSHH rules/regulations and was wearing appropriate PPE before he plundered her filthy stench-trench.

H&SAW cuts both ways.

Did Steersman ever launch his consent app? Could be time to put in a feature request to help automate regulatory compliance.

#121

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Swinging a bag of radios at the victim's head was use of deadly force. That is what justified the use of deadly force in response.

Reminds me of this.

#120

Bit of trivia I learned after leaving New York and looking into the gun laws, Vermont is constitutional carry (i.e. no permit required to carry), and also it has no stand your ground law for your home. One hell of a combo.

#119

fafnir wrote: ↑
Bhurzum wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:39 am

John D wrote: ↑Doods come in with masks and steal shit. Shop owner says leave. One dood jumps the counter threatening the owners personal safety. Owner protects his safety with reasonable defensive tools.... and... somehow this is the owners fault.
I'm just waiting for a rapist to sue his victim because he caught crabs off her.

:lol:
Isn't it normally the responsibility of the operator of a venue to keep it in minimal compliance with health and safety regs?

Well, if that's the case, I hope our hypothetical rapist conducted a risk assessment, familiarised himself with relevant COSHH rules/regulations and was wearing appropriate PPE before he plundered her filthy stench-trench.

H&SAW cuts both ways.

https://i.gifer.com/4wA.gif

(does rape qualify as work?)

#118

Service Dog wrote: ↑ the law sez deadly force is allowed in the protection of property... IF a felony is being committed.

Non-deadly force may be used to protect property, or to trespass someone off your property. Deadly force may only be used when you have a reasonable belief an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm exists. In general, use of force must always be proportional.

This example is from Florida, but it's quite colorful & shows how much latitude there is in favor of the victim of robbery:

The Tampa Bay Times identified other questionable cases that judges found justified under Florida’s "stand your ground" law, including one in which a man who saw someone stealing a radio out of his vehicle grabbed a knife and chased the suspect down. The suspect swung a bag of stolen radios at the man, who then stabbed him in the chest with a knife. The fact that [the robbery victim] never called police, hid the knife and sold the bag of stolen radios by the time police caught him didn’t matter to the judge, who [ruled] the case was self-defense.

The brandishing of a weapon may or may not constitute assault depending on the jurisdiction.

Swinging a bag of radios at the victim's head was use of deadly force. That is what justified the use of deadly force in response.

#117

John D wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:49 pm
I am not saying John Corea is wrong on the law. I suspect this poor shop owner has just destroyed his life for the next ten years. I am saying that I think the law is wrong. If a dood in a mask jumps your counter to steal shit you should be able to execute him. Most people do not agree with me.

I think that for most people the decision on whether or not to put holes in another human being is dependent on more than whether the law allows it and "principle". IOW, Jack Reacher is a psychopathic cnut. You either have an abhorrence for the idea or you don't.

#116

Nevada's 'Stand Your Ground' law passed in 2012 & I read an article from back-then which said there law didn't establish anything new-- it just codified the status quo as established in precedent cases.

If so, I suspect Nevada has plenty of precedent cases involving gangs of masked bandits robbing shopkeepers. And small details... such as this gang holding the front door open so the shopkeep couldn't activate the remote door lock... and the several verbal requests which the crooks disregarded... should accrue in the shopkeep's favor.

Specifically... the robbers have been charged with felonies... & the law sez deadly force is allowed in the protection of property... IF a felony is being committed.

This example is from Florida, but it's quite colorful & shows how much latitude there is in favor of the victim of robbery:

The Tampa Bay Times identified other questionable cases that judges found justified under Florida’s "stand your ground" law, including one in which a man who saw someone stealing a radio out of his vehicle grabbed a knife and chased the suspect down. The suspect swung a bag of stolen radios at the man, who then stabbed him in the chest with a knife. The fact that [the robbery victim] never called police, hid the knife and sold the bag of stolen radios by the time police caught him didn’t matter to the judge, who [ruled] the case was self-defense.

#115

AndrewV69 wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:50 pm
Now I am hearing that the 100mph (estimated) fiery (but mostly peaceful) crash involving a Mercedes Benz where six people were killed on the spot, was being driven by a drunk registered nurse.

"Deaths of Exuberance"

https://www.unz.com/isteve/deaths-of-exuberance/

[/bbvideo]

#114

John D wrote: ↑ I am not saying John Corea is wrong on the law. I suspect this poor shop owner has just destroyed his life for the next ten years. I am saying that I think the law is wrong. If a dood in a mask jumps your counter to steal shit you should be able to execute him. Most people do not agree with me.

'Execute' is a loaded term (so to speak).

I prefer the way Anita Loos put it - ie that circumstances would conspire that somehow the store visitor 'became all shot'.

#113

Bhurzum wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:39 am

John D wrote: ↑Doods come in with masks and steal shit. Shop owner says leave. One dood jumps the counter threatening the owners personal safety. Owner protects his safety with reasonable defensive tools.... and... somehow this is the owners fault.
I'm just waiting for a rapist to sue his victim because he caught crabs off her.

:lol:

Isn't it normally the responsibility of the operator of a venue to keep it in minimal compliance with health and safety regs?

#112

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑
Service Dog wrote: ↑ They now sell marshmallows with the chocolate already cocooned inside.
And I automated the rest of the S'mores process.

The chocolate in the marshmallows isn't correct. It's more like a Charleston Chew, than Hershey's. But it does make the uncooked marshmallows a better snack, straight from the bag.
I invented the M&M inside the toasted marshmallow. It's incredible - try it some time.

I never gave it a name. Suggestions?

Heart-cloggers.

(they sound bloody nice!)

#111

Marshall Mathers

#110

Service Dog wrote: ↑ They now sell marshmallows with the chocolate already cocooned inside.
And I automated the rest of the S'mores process.

The chocolate in the marshmallows isn't correct. It's more like a Charleston Chew, than Hershey's. But it does make the uncooked marshmallows a better snack, straight from the bag.

I invented the M&M inside the toasted marshmallow. It's incredible - try it some time.

I never gave it a name. Suggestions?

#109

They now sell marshmallows with the chocolate already cocooned inside.
And I automated the rest of the S'mores process.

The chocolate in the marshmallows isn't correct. It's more like a Charleston Chew, than Hershey's. But it does make the uncooked marshmallows a better snack, straight from the bag.

#108

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ you told him to lie more carefully so it wasn't so easy for a bad person like me to show what a liar he is. I'm sure it was embarrassing for you to see your friend telling such transparent lies.

This is not a fair & honest characterization.

And I won't pretend that both free thoughtpolice & John are equally culpable. Nope. That would be False Equivalence. John tried to mend a mess in good faith. & ftp responded by compounding the mess in bad faith.

I think this is an iteration of the 'derangement syndrome'-- when the effteepeez of the world feel so justified in the their contempt... that they give themselves permission to abandon minimum standards of how to treat people whose opinions differ from theirs.

I understand the upside to me Not posting this, taking a higher road.

But I'm not out of line for posting this.
Decorum does not oblige me to refrain from calling-out bad behavior.

#107

Now I am hearing that the 100mph (estimated) fiery (but mostly peaceful) crash involving a Mercedes Benz where six people were killed on the spot, was being driven by a drunk registered nurse.

search for Nicole Linton for more details.

#106

I am not saying John Corea is wrong on the law. I suspect this poor shop owner has just destroyed his life for the next ten years. I am saying that I think the law is wrong. If a dood in a mask jumps your counter to steal shit you should be able to execute him. Most people do not agree with me.

#105

John D wrote: ↑ So... totally unrelated to anything. But I regret not seeing Devo live back in the day. This performance is fabulous... haha.

Remember seeing them on the Stiff tour with Lene Lovich, Rachel Sweet etc. Great live gig - completely tonto!

#104

John D wrote: ↑ If I ran a shop like that I would keep a gun on my hip and both of those fuckers would be dead.

I fucking hate people. Really.

And if & when you do, Dana Nessel will display this comment in court on a giant board on an easel, and you'll think Joan of Arc got off light in comparison.

And cuz I just responded, that beady-eyed bitch will subpoena me and I'll testify, "John may have shot to kill, but I shoot to thrill. I'm like evil, I get under your skin. Just like a bomb that's ready to blow. Cuz I'm illegal. I got everything that all you women might need to know." Then I'd blow kisses at her and wink.

I got your six, bro.

#103

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑
AndrewV69 wrote: ↑ YouTube channel ActiveSelfProtection has a take:

the law is not on the store owner's side.

I suspect Nevada law favors the store owner more than lawyers or self-defense experts wish to admit in a soundbite. The actual amount of legal cover is one thing. But _advising_ others to look at this case & _count on_ that cover protecting-them in similar circumstances... is a whole 'nother thing. Better to err on the side of "don't do what this guy did" than "everything will turn out just fine if you do what he did."

#102

AndrewV69 wrote: ↑ YouTube channel ActiveSelfProtection has a take:

I think Correia was wrong on the NY Bodega incident, but he's right on this one. I'm all for rodent removal, and folks are sick & tired of thugs getting away with crime. But the law is not on the store owner's side. Clark County is blue, and the DA is a Democrat, although I just looked him up and he's hated by far lefties. He also has his own TV show, and is married to a 'Judge Judy' style TV judge.

#101

John D wrote: ↑Doods come in with masks and steal shit. Shop owner says leave. One dood jumps the counter threatening the owners personal safety. Owner protects his safety with reasonable defensive tools.... and... somehow this is the owners fault.

I'm just waiting for a rapist to sue his victim because he caught crabs off her.

:lol:

#100

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
John D wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:37 am
Jesus ftp.

Dog and ftp... stop acting like cunts.

I know you hate each other, but can you both just stop now? Maybe you need your own thread where you just shit on each other. That would work.

Really... just fucking stop. Breathe. Have a drink. Post whatever you want but this back and forth stupid shit is maddening for me. Just stop. Do it for the rest of us.
Talk to your friend, or don't bother, because he won't listen to you. You tried earlier when you told him to lie more carefully so it wasn't so easy for a bad person like me to show what a liar he is. I'm sure it was embarrassing for you to see your friend telling such transparent lies.
Instead of just admitting he was wrong and dropping it he just doubled down and the lies and childish troll tricks.

I am pretty sure we are all imperfect creatures.... me included. If you and Dog want to spend hours just shitting on each other... then go right ahead. Believe it or not I consider both of you friends... and if we got together for a scotch I think we would have a good time... even though we all act like cunts once in a while. I learn from both of you and I am just a bit disappointed that you both spend so much time digging up past harms and other such bullshit. Asking you to stop.

#99

John D wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:37 am
Jesus ftp.

Dog and ftp... stop acting like cunts.

I know you hate each other, but can you both just stop now? Maybe you need your own thread where you just shit on each other. That would work.

Really... just fucking stop. Breathe. Have a drink. Post whatever you want but this back and forth stupid shit is maddening for me. Just stop. Do it for the rest of us.

Talk to your friend, or don't bother, because he won't listen to you. You tried earlier when you told him to lie more carefully so it wasn't so easy for a bad person like me to show what a liar he is. I'm sure it was embarrassing for you to see your friend telling such transparent lies.
Instead of just admitting he was wrong and dropping it he just doubled down and the lies and childish troll tricks.

#98

Jesus ftp.

Dog and ftp... stop acting like cunts.

I know you hate each other, but can you both just stop now? Maybe you need your own thread where you just shit on each other. That would work.

Really... just fucking stop. Breathe. Have a drink. Post whatever you want but this back and forth stupid shit is maddening for me. Just stop. Do it for the rest of us.

#97

Bhurzum wrote: ↑

:P

Interesting read on what Gazi has been up to these days.
I was reading at a center left to far left news aggregator about a month ago where it was mentioned that someone had set fire to a flag at the Florida headquarters of Gazi's old group Uhuru. In the comments, some had proposed that a white supremacist group had done it and it was a hate crime, I proposed that ex-member Kodzo was a possible suspect and linked to a video he made about his split from the group.
Some people agreed with me, but there were several people that reminded me of extreme lefty versions of Service Dog that disagreed strongly, claiming I was a racist that was going after a fine bunch of activists for their fight against racism.
I think I will have to let them know about Gazi's latest troubles, but I suspect that like BS Dog they will toss in loads of fact free nonsense about this being a conspiracy by The Man (lefty version of the Deep State) that was out to crush their fine movement.

#96

Oh my god... these guys actually aged really well. Wildly entertaining.

#95

So... totally unrelated to anything. But I regret not seeing Devo live back in the day. This performance is fabulous... haha.

#94

YouTube channel ActiveSelfProtection has a take:

#93

Bhurzum wrote: ↑ More on the vape store stabbing...

Jesus... the media talking heads tell this story in a way that accuses the shop owner of doing something wrong. They just say "Hey... let people steal all your shit and then call the useless fucking cops."

Clown world.

Doods come in with masks and steal shit. Shop owner says leave. One dood jumps the counter threatening the owners personal safety. Owner protects his safety with reasonable defensive tools.... and... somehow this is the owners fault. If I ran a shop like that I would keep a gun on my hip and both of those fuckers would be dead.

I fucking hate people. Really.

#92

oh, wait, even better:

Black Hitler [they/them] dindu nufffin.

#91

Black Hitler did nothing wrong.

#90

Yet another Rings Of Power meme-video...

#89

:P

#88

John D wrote: ↑
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Craziness in LA -

Yesterday, a drunk woman going 100 mph in her Mercedes plows through an intersection, killing six:
https://www.foxla.com/news/windsor-hill ... er-suspect

Today, Anne Heche, chugging vodka, plows into a house going 90 mph in her Cooper Mini:
`https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/05/anne-hec ... rned-fire/
A testament to the high safety found in modern cars. Massive crashes where the drivers survived. Too bad there is not technology to save the people that get hit. A front end crash is most common. Much engineering is done to protect the driver during a front end (or discrete) crash. It is much much harder to protect occupants from a side crash. Modern cars do have side air bags, and they help, but you can only do so much. So many times the drunk driver survives after having killed many others.

Can't we just kill these evil drivers but strapping them to the barrier during an automotive crash test? Image how much we could learn by their execution.

#87

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Back to Conspiratoria