Haunted House Shooting - Page 3

Shawnee123 · 09-05-2006, 01:39 PM

Oh, and also, the guy said they had been bothered in the past, but never informed police of the ongoing harassment because of their poor relationship with the city.

What? They supposedly have been persecuted, but it's better to take the law into your own hands than have a paper trail proving the persecution? Like "I'm so mad but not mad enough to call the police, but if I get madder still I plan to shoot at them"? I'm guessing the "poor relationship" was over problems with the property, as other parts of the article said a neighbor said it was an overgrown mess.

Spooky is as spooky does.

zippyt · 09-05-2006, 01:55 PM

So I guess it would be ok for me to shoot at the folks that cut the corner short on the road and cross into my property ??

YeeHaaaw !!!! Movin Targets !!!!! Lets get some ammo !!!!

What I am saying is if he had walked out on the porch and fired a couple of warning shots he would have been in the right , but NO he had to shoot AT them !!!

Oh and it would Probley be a good thing if you disarmed that crasy relitive .

Shawnee123 · 09-05-2006, 02:09 PM

Oh, Mr McNoodle...do not accuse me of poor comprehension skills. I did not attack your intelligence, or lack thereof. I said you said "as much." Here we get into semantics arguments again. Let me rephrase: you implied that the girls got what they should have expected. Not free from responsiblity for their actions, true enough. Give them a ticket, a warning, call their folks...something like that might have happened if the man didn't have a "poor relationship with the city" and had called police. He may have even set a precedent if he had notified authorities, taken license plate numbers, filed complaints...sent the message that he would not tolerate people screwing with his life. He could have had an initial spine, or balls if you will, rather than wait to snap. Instead, a young lady is laying with a bullet in her head.

But I'm sure our shooter's comprehension of that situation, or any other situation, is impeccable. He's a damn reasonable human being. Arm all the lunatics, I say. Hopefully I won't accidentally jaywalk.

What if a person who is nuttier than the shooter had wandered into his yard? Or, what if my grandmother with Alzheimers had been confused and wandered into his yard? She should pay because he was persecuted so terribly by a bunch of curious kids?

Wow.

mrnoodle · 09-05-2006, 03:55 PM

And he didn't "go around shooting people".

I call a draw

Shawnee123 · 09-05-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

And he didn't "go around shooting people".

I call a draw

Being "in" a house is a pretty concrete thing. You are either in a house, or you're not.

You know very well that "going around" is a figure of speech, but as semantics are your best defense, I'll take your draw.

Trilby · 09-05-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I call a draw

This thread was just getting good and now you two are going to stop? Sheesh.

(better put winky smilie in so noodle doesn't think I'm being caustic)

Shawnee123 · 09-05-2006, 04:00 PM

Conflict makes my head hurt.

(I could just shoot him!) :p

JUST KIDDING

tw · 09-05-2006, 04:22 PM

Pre-emption: they might be a threat. Therefore attack them before they do threaten. No different from what George Jr promotes when he says we must kill all those in a world wide terrorist network before they can become terrorists. Some believe George Jr is correct and moral.

Pre-emption: those girls might be a threat. Therefore a home occupant has every right to fire a gun in defense.

09-06-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Pre-emption: they might be a threat. Therefore attack them before they do threaten. No different from what George Jr promotes when he says we must kill all those in a world wide terrorist network before they can become terrorists. Some believe George Jr is correct and moral.

Pre-emption: those girls might be a threat. Therefore a home occupant has every right to fire a gun in defense.

Sucks to be his mail carrier.

Flint · 09-05-2006, 04:37 PM

Is there a "Godwin's Law"-type definition for when you turn a not-about-Bush thread into an about-Bush thread?

tw · 09-05-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Is there a "Godwin's Law"-type definition for when you turn a not-about-Bush thread into an about-Bush thread?

Both events go right to the heart of each person's morality and ability to think logically; ignore silly emotions. Both events involve a same fundamental grasp of reality. Where is the difference between pre-emption at a presidential level and pre-emption on your own sidewalk? Both events challenge your morality, test your ability to decipher reality from emotional bias, and imply whether you are an extremist or an honest, decent, intelligent, sane, and secure person.

Would those so extremist as to justify unilateral international invasion also sanction gn use to defend a sidewalk? In both cases, use of deadly force was warranted only by a perceived and fictional threat. Why must I lay out the irony step by step?

Quote:

B) he says they didn't threaten him directly, but that he didn't know their intentions, either.

That is a threat? Of course not. Those are events that might precede a threat. Same reasoning, ironically, justified 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq and is currently being used to declare war on a 'worldwide network of international terrorists'. An honest person cannot, for one minute, ignore that rancid reality - the sardonic similarities of both events. In both cases, a threat did/does not exist. But one with a big gun entertained his fears; speculated the existence of a fictional threat.

Again, I should not have to demonstrate the sardonic similarity of both events nor detail how Cellar dwellers respond to similar events. Some think logically perceive the irony - immediately. Same irony might escape those who respond first with emotion. An irony so obvious that this post should be unnecessary.

xoxoxoBruce · 09-05-2006, 10:33 PM

Save it for Sunday, Padre.

The guy's a wacko. He's got no business shooting out the window at possible threats.

But, I agree with noodle that the girls had no business screwing around the guys house. If one of the girls hadn't honked the horn and caused them to bolt back to the car, what had they planned on doing? Roaming around a strangers property at night is pretty stupid. They don't know if there's wackos, dogs, attack roosters or bear traps. If the yard is fairly flat....there could be snakes on the plain.

Trilby · 09-06-2006, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the yard is fairly flat....there could be snakes on the plain.

That is really funny, xob. Thanks!

Shawnee123 · 09-06-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the yard is fairly flat....there could be snakes on the plain.

That is funny!

I agree that the girls shouldn't have been roaming around the house. But again I ask...what crazy things did you do when you were young and you felt immortal? Sometimes I'm amazed I survived, and I was a fairly good kid. Do you feel you did anything that you deserved to get shot over?

The fact that the guy's defense was continued persecution by evil teenagers, but failing to ever, not even once, report the activity to authorities, negates any credibility that he felt threatened enough to fire at will (or whatever her name was.)

Yep, wacko alright!

glatt · 09-06-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

But again I ask...

I don't understand who you are arguing with.

Everyone in this thread has said that the guy shouldn't have shot at the girls.

Everyone who has weighed in on the girls' actions, including you, has said that the girls were wrong to be there that night.

We are all in agreement.

09-05-2006, 01:39 PM	#1
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Oh, and also, the guy said they had been bothered in the past, but never informed police of the ongoing harassment because of their poor relationship with the city. What? They supposedly have been persecuted, but it's better to take the law into your own hands than have a paper trail proving the persecution? Like "I'm so mad but not mad enough to call the police, but if I get madder still I plan to shoot at them"? I'm guessing the "poor relationship" was over problems with the property, as other parts of the article said a neighbor said it was an overgrown mess. Spooky is as spooky does. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

09-05-2006, 01:55 PM	#2
zippyt LONG LIVE KING ZIPPY! per Feetz Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Arkansas Posts: 7,661	So I guess it would be ok for me to shoot at the folks that cut the corner short on the road and cross into my property ?? YeeHaaaw !!!! Movin Targets !!!!! Lets get some ammo !!!! What I am saying is if he had walked out on the porch and fired a couple of warning shots he would have been in the right , but NO he had to shoot AT them !!! Oh and it would Probley be a good thing if you disarmed that crasy relitive . __________________ "Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. " Brother Dave Gardner

09-05-2006, 02:09 PM	#3
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Oh, Mr McNoodle...do not accuse me of poor comprehension skills. I did not attack your intelligence, or lack thereof. I said you said "as much." Here we get into semantics arguments again. Let me rephrase: you implied that the girls got what they should have expected. Not free from responsiblity for their actions, true enough. Give them a ticket, a warning, call their folks...something like that might have happened if the man didn't have a "poor relationship with the city" and had called police. He may have even set a precedent if he had notified authorities, taken license plate numbers, filed complaints...sent the message that he would not tolerate people screwing with his life. He could have had an initial spine, or balls if you will, rather than wait to snap. Instead, a young lady is laying with a bullet in her head. But I'm sure our shooter's comprehension of that situation, or any other situation, is impeccable. He's a damn reasonable human being. Arm all the lunatics, I say. Hopefully I won't accidentally jaywalk. What if a person who is nuttier than the shooter had wandered into his yard? Or, what if my grandmother with Alzheimers had been confused and wandered into his yard? She should pay because he was persecuted so terribly by a bunch of curious kids? Wow. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

09-05-2006, 03:55 PM	#4
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	And he didn't "go around shooting people". I call a draw __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

09-05-2006, 04:00 PM	#7
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Conflict makes my head hurt. (I could just shoot him!) :p JUST KIDDING __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

09-05-2006, 04:22 PM	#8
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Pre-emption: they might be a threat. Therefore attack them before they do threaten. No different from what George Jr promotes when he says we must kill all those in a world wide terrorist network before they can become terrorists. Some believe George Jr is correct and moral. Pre-emption: those girls might be a threat. Therefore a home occupant has every right to fire a gun in defense.

09-05-2006, 04:37 PM	#10
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Is there a "Godwin's Law"-type definition for when you turn a not-about-Bush thread into an about-Bush thread? __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

09-05-2006, 10:33 PM	#12
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Save it for Sunday, Padre. The guy's a wacko. He's got no business shooting out the window at possible threats. But, I agree with noodle that the girls had no business screwing around the guys house. If one of the girls hadn't honked the horn and caused them to bolt back to the car, what had they planned on doing? Roaming around a strangers property at night is pretty stupid. They don't know if there's wackos, dogs, attack roosters or bear traps. If the yard is fairly flat....there could be snakes on the plain. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)