Whopper of the Month

[Seth]

admit it Seth

you are pwned

Hardly. The bleeding-heart liberal versions of the events simply ignore the very real fear the idiot kid induced in the homeowners. Further research will reveal that he had a HISTORY of being deliberately aggressive towards people in Japan. It was a bad habit that got him killed precisely because Japan bans guns and doesn't teach its children how to respond when they are facing one, much less, evidently teaching them how to be polite guests in foreign countries where the social mores and practices are different.

He probably didn't believe it was a real gun, because Airsoft guns are quite common in Japan, to the extent that pointing a gun at someone is an invitation to play. Which is a valid condemnation of the toy-gun market for realistic pellet-firing replica firearms that ORIGINATED in Japan as some sort of childish replacement for the sword and Bushido, which Japan has cut out of its culture.

Sheer cultural stupidity got the kid killed, that and cultural anti-gun ignorance.

Nobody but a REAL criminal or deranged nutcase bent on violence from the US would dare to continue to come at an armed citizen shouting for them to freeze and brandishing a firearm, and that was a very large part of the homeowner's decision to shoot, and the jury agreed with him, and so do I and so, I suspect, do most armed citizens and people who are even marginally well-informed about firearms safety.

paranoid schizophrenia is an illness

I agree. Perhaps you should seek treatment for your illness.

[Lozzer]

admit it Seth

you are pwned

Hardly. The bleeding-heart liberal versions of the events simply ignore the very real fear the idiot kid induced in the homeowners. Further research will reveal that he had a HISTORY of being deliberately aggressive towards people in Japan. It was a bad habit that got him killed precisely because Japan bans guns and doesn't teach its children how to respond when they are facing one, much less, evidently teaching them how to be polite guests in foreign countries where the social mores and practices are different.

He probably didn't believe it was a real gun, because Airsoft guns are quite common in Japan, to the extent that pointing a gun at someone is an invitation to play. Which is a valid condemnation of the toy-gun market for realistic pellet-firing replica firearms that ORIGINATED in Japan as some sort of childish replacement for the sword and Bushido, which Japan has cut out of its culture.

Sheer cultural stupidity got the kid killed, that and cultural anti-gun ignorance.

Nobody but a REAL criminal or deranged nutcase bent on violence from the US would dare to continue to come at an armed citizen shouting for them to freeze and brandishing a firearm, and that was a very large part of the homeowner's decision to shoot, and the jury agreed with him, and so do I and so, I suspect, do most armed citizens and people who are even marginally well-informed about firearms safety.

paranoid schizophrenia is an illness

I agree. Perhaps you should seek treatment for your illness.

TROLLOLOLOLOL

[.Morticia.]

admit it Seth

you are pwned

Hardly. The bleeding-heart liberal versions of the events simply ignore the very real fear the idiot kid induced in the homeowners. Further research will reveal that he had a HISTORY of being deliberately aggressive towards people in Japan. It was a bad habit that got him killed precisely because Japan bans guns and doesn't teach its children how to respond when they are facing one, much less, evidently teaching them how to be polite guests in foreign countries where the social mores and practices are different.

He probably didn't believe it was a real gun, because Airsoft guns are quite common in Japan, to the extent that pointing a gun at someone is an invitation to play. Which is a valid condemnation of the toy-gun market for realistic pellet-firing replica firearms that ORIGINATED in Japan as some sort of childish replacement for the sword and Bushido, which Japan has cut out of its culture.

Sheer cultural stupidity got the kid killed, that and cultural anti-gun ignorance.

Nobody but a REAL criminal or deranged nutcase bent on violence from the US would dare to continue to come at an armed citizen shouting for them to freeze and brandishing a firearm, and that was a very large part of the homeowner's decision to shoot, and the jury agreed with him, and so do I and so, I suspect, do most armed citizens and people who are even marginally well-informed about firearms safety.

paranoid schizophrenia is an illness

I agree. Perhaps you should seek treatment for your illness.

not you

the homeowner who did the shooting

[Seth]

admit it Seth

you are pwned

Hardly. The bleeding-heart liberal versions of the events simply ignore the very real fear the idiot kid induced in the homeowners. Further research will reveal that he had a HISTORY of being deliberately aggressive towards people in Japan. It was a bad habit that got him killed precisely because Japan bans guns and doesn't teach its children how to respond when they are facing one, much less, evidently teaching them how to be polite guests in foreign countries where the social mores and practices are different.

He probably didn't believe it was a real gun, because Airsoft guns are quite common in Japan, to the extent that pointing a gun at someone is an invitation to play. Which is a valid condemnation of the toy-gun market for realistic pellet-firing replica firearms that ORIGINATED in Japan as some sort of childish replacement for the sword and Bushido, which Japan has cut out of its culture.

Sheer cultural stupidity got the kid killed, that and cultural anti-gun ignorance.

Nobody but a REAL criminal or deranged nutcase bent on violence from the US would dare to continue to come at an armed citizen shouting for them to freeze and brandishing a firearm, and that was a very large part of the homeowner's decision to shoot, and the jury agreed with him, and so do I and so, I suspect, do most armed citizens and people who are even marginally well-informed about firearms safety.

paranoid schizophrenia is an illness

I agree. Perhaps you should seek treatment for your illness.

not you

the homeowner who did the shooting

Oh. Okay. Well, the jury didn't find him not guilty by reason of insanity, they found him not guilty, which means that he had a "reasonable belief" when he pulled the trigger. Them's the facts, Jack.

[.Morticia.]

You know what I think happened

the jury mistook reasonable for understandable

I also don't think the home owner was that scared

people who are truly scared run and hide and stay away from danger, that is what reasonable people do when they are scared

people who are angry are confrontational

even then, fear doesn't give a carte blanche to use deadly force

I have been scared many times, never felt the need to use fiorce

my friend has been in many truly frightening situations, he's been an adventurer in west africa and central america, and has rarely drawn his gun, even so, he has never fired it

[Cunt]

What was the question?

[Seth]

You know what I think happened

the jury mistook reasonable for understandable

Now you're second-guessing the triers of fact who had access to all the evidence, to which you have zero access?

I also don't think the home owner was that scared

Easy for you to say, after the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20 and armchair quarterbacks always think they know everything.

people who are truly scared run and hide and stay away from danger, that is what reasonable people do when they are scared

That's what cowards do. Brave persons, particularly those defending their loved ones, stand up to their fears and confront them, overcome them, and do what is necessary to defend their lives and their loved ones.

people who are angry are confrontational

People who are confrontational breed anger, and fear.

even then, fear doesn't give a carte blanche to use deadly force

No, but reasonable fear that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death OR serious bodily harm does, as a matter of law.

I have been scared many times, never felt the need to use fiorce

Lucky you. What does that have to do with anything at all?

my friend has been in many truly frightening situations, he's been an adventurer in west africa and central america, and has rarely drawn his gun, even so, he has never fired it

Lucky him. And yet he CARRIES a gun against the eventuality that he will have to do so. Wise man. I suggest you learn something important from him: Carrying a gun does not mean that you will ever have to use it, but it does give you options you don't have when you don't have one.

[.Morticia.]

really, only cowards choose non violence? That's a very ignorant statement and shows your lack of knowledge about the psychology of violence and violent offenders.

I suggest you read this book, for starters,

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/con ... /159/4/688

[Seth]

really, only cowards choose non violence?

Goalpost shifting. You didn't say anything about choosing non-violence, you said, and I quote, "people who are truly scared run and hide and stay away from danger, that is what reasonable people do when they are scared." That is not a description of choosing non-violence, it is a description of an uncontrolled fear reaction that will most likely get you killed. Yes, running away may be an appropriate tactic in some cases, but not in all cases. For example, when the thug grabs your pre-teen daughter, threatens to cut her throat if you interfere, rips her clothes off and proceeds to rape her fore and aft, whatcha gonna do? Call Ghostbusters? You can run away if you want, but don't mistake that cowardice for choosing non-violence because it's just plain old pants-wetting cowardice.

Me, I'll die trying to protect my nephews, even if it means facing down an armed thug with nothing but my teeth, hands and feet, which are pretty dangerous weapons in and of themselves. But I'll carry and use my gun whenever possible, to tip the balance in my favor.

Choosing non-violence is the polar opposite of cowardice or fear, it is facing violence with non-violence and accepting the personal consequences of violence without complaint as a demonstration of the wrongfulness of the violence, as in Dr. Martin Luther King's practices during the Civil Rights Era and Gandhi's practices in India.

So, you're mendaciously trying to toss red herrings into the discussion.

That's a very ignorant statement and shows your lack of knowledge about the psychology of violence and violent offenders.

Ya think? Well I put my career as a professional law enforcement officer and detective, which included more than a little practical experience and professional high-level training in criminal psychology and violent offenders up against yours any day.

I suggest you read this book, for starters,

I suggest you not try to tell your grandpa how to suck eggs, particularly when you can't manage to stick to the point and shovel the straw and smelly fish by the truckload to try to bolster your weak argument.

[.Morticia.]

that's sweet

I studied forensic psychiatry

then how come you believe in escalating and I believe in defusing and calming a situation, seems odd don't you think

and yes, I know of the method of Overwhelming Force, but that's not what we're talking about here

we're talking about people who have a mind set of the use of violence to solve personal problems

[Cunt]

Can you guys re-frame the question so us latecomers can see what it is that you disagree on?

[Seth]

that's sweet

I studied forensic psychiatry

Glad to hear it.

then how come you believe in escalating and I believe in defusing and calming a situation, seems odd don't you think

and yes, I know of the method of Overwhelming Force, but that's not what we're talking about here

we're talking about people who have a mind set of the use of violence to solve personal problems

No, overwhelming force is EXACLTY what we're talking about, and we're talking about self defense when it reasonably appears you are being attacked by an assailant in your own home.

We're not talking about an argument between friends or a mild disagreement, we're discussing imminent life or death, flight or fight reactions to apparent criminal assaults in progress. We're talking about instinctive reactions and which are likely to save your life and which are likely to get you killed when you have a split second to make a decision. And we're discussing the legal justification for the use of lethal force in defense of persons.

This isn't a group therapy session, it's live or die, right NOW!

I advocate preparation and training, and carrying the appropriate tools for armed self defense,which tilts the balance in any attack in favor of the innocent victim and away from the assailant.

I also advocate, generally speaking, that victims NOT turn and run from assailants if they are prepared to defend themselves, because turning your back on an attacker is a much worse idea than being situationally aware, taking cover, and engaging the assailant with overwhelming force so as to either deter him or maximize your chances of survival.

I do acknowledge that there are times for negotiation, times for retreat, and times to run. But I advocate being armed first and foremost, because it gives you important options you don't have if you aren't.

[Seth]

Can you guys re-frame the question so us latecomers can see what it is that you disagree on?

There isn't a question. There is a personal attack and an accusation. At the moment we're discussing the propriety and justifications for the use of deadly physical force in defense of the person, as it relates to a case in Louisiana some years ago where a Japanese student was shot dead by a homeowner, who was acquitted of the killing based on a self-defense defense.

[Pensioner]

12 rednecks good and true find another redneck not guilty of murder, good old American justice at its best.

[Seth]

12 rednecks good and true find another redneck not guilty of murder, good old American justice at its best.

Indeed. Beats Lords and Ladies and high mucky-mucks pronouncing judgment on the forelock-tugging serviles of the UK.