Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: May 11

Birmingham, UK

#599616 Oct 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The windshield is a three layer glass sammich.
The outer and inner layers are the glass, the center is a glue-like vinyl called PVB, polyvinyl butyral. It's an incredibly strong lamination.
When the glass is impacted, it doesn't shatter, you only get a crack.
Why couldn't you just remove the glass? Why'd you have to break it?
...Which is completely irrelevant to the subject of assault with a deadly weapon, the windscreen could have been made from bulletproof lexan and in the eyes of the law the victim still apprehended immediate and severe physical harm...which is an assault.

...but you keep typing your word salad to the circle jerk and the rest of us will keep laughing.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#599617 Oct 8, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Watch reruns of Amish Mafia on Discovery channel and see how easily modern windshields break. Little semi-round pieces instead of sharp daggers is the major change.
Since you've never seen a windshield be broken, here:

http://youtu.be/V681SrkWwTY

Notice that guy hits the windshield dozens of times and it stays put.

Also notice the teeny tiny fragments of harmless glass that fall down.

I hit that guys windshield one time.

And not with a hammer...

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599618 Oct 8, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not even close to the same thing....
What is the difference ? The occupant is being threatened with imminent harm and/or death.
Is it different if I attack you with a golf club to steal your wallet than if I do the exact same thing just because I am mad at you ?

That makes no sense.

Since: May 11

Birmingham, UK

#599620 Oct 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You still didn't answer my question. Instead you propose another red herring to change the topic.
Again, this is about you and your opinion, not about me and my actions or you and your actions.
This is the fourth time I've asked...
When you see "disciplining a child", do you only assume that means physical discipline?
Again, this is and always has been about your attitude to striking your children.

I have just told you in words that even you could not fail to understand; my attitude towards the matter.

Have you figured out the difference between an assault and a battery yet?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599621 Oct 8, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Nor does changing the facts from what they actually are
<quoted text>....
LOL

THAT is RR's tactics not mine or yours. <smile>

If RR wasn't such a 'twister' it would be easier for all of us. All he does is babble this crap to get others fighting. Ain't gonna work. He isn't going to get between us.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#599622 Oct 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The windshield is a three layer glass sammich.
The outer and inner layers are the glass, the center is a glue-like vinyl called PVB, polyvinyl butyral. It's an incredibly strong lamination.
When the glass is impacted, it doesn't shatter, you only get a crack.
Why couldn't you just remove the glass? Why'd you have to break it?
The back glass was damaged too. It was held together by a tint film I think. I was able to get it out by cutting the seal and pushing it. The windshield seal was much stronger. It was taking a long time and a lot of effort to cut the seal out, so I decided to beat the shit out of it. Once I got a hole in the middle of the windshield, I was able to start peeling it out from the middle.

My dad used to have a ton and a half chevy truck with a laminated back glass panel, but it had a wire mesh between the glass layers.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599623 Oct 8, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me make it real simple for all of us. If you are beating the crap out of a vehicle with a golf club while someone is inside it, the occupants and observers (Cops for example) have every right in the world to assume you are trying to harm the occupants and they are justified in using lethal force to stop you.
No they are not!

They don't get to decide what you may do later will pose a deadly threat and get to shoot you preemptively
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
End of conversation. The type of glass in the windows is a red herring and means nothing at all, no more than if you shot at a cop, his having a bullet proof vest changes nothing.
No, the red herring is trying to compare an assault on a vehicle to shooting someone with the intent to kill them

Apples and oranges

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599624 Oct 8, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
THAT is RR's tactics not mine or yours. <smile>
If RR wasn't such a 'twister' it would be easier for all of us. All he does is babble this crap to get others fighting. Ain't gonna work. He isn't going to get between us.
I have no desire or intention on it coming between us friend

But the only thing that matters here is his actual actions. Not what he might have done or what someone might perceive it to be or what someone wants to consider it without applying the legal parameters

The most he could be guilty of would anywhere between vandalism, felonious destruction of property, and simple assault

And since the prosecutor dropped it to vandalism, its a pretty safe bet he saw no attempt to injure the passenger

(T) Peace

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#599625 Oct 8, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
...Which is completely irrelevant to the subject of assault with a deadly weapon, the windscreen could have been made from bulletproof lexan and in the eyes of the law the victim still apprehended immediate and severe physical harm...which is an assault.
...but you keep typing your word salad to the circle jerk and the rest of us will keep laughing.
Eh?

I was just spreading knowledge of windshield design.

I never said it was relevant.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599626 Oct 8, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the difference ? The occupant is being threatened with imminent harm and/or death.
Is it different if I attack you with a golf club to steal your wallet than if I do the exact same thing just because I am mad at you ?
That makes no sense.
So if i am inside my house and someone is whacking my front door with a bat, you see that as pretty much the same thing as swinging the bat at me personally?

You can't charge someone or defend yourself based on what you think someone may do afterwards

If you shoot a guy while he is still hitting your front door, you are going to jail for murder. Same with your windshield

If he breaks down your front door, enters the house, and tries to hit you; then you can shoot them

If someone breaks the windshield, manually pulls it away from the car and then tries to hit you with something, then you can shoot them. Not before

That's simply the law

Since: May 11

Birmingham, UK

#599627 Oct 8, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
Learn something about Sociology
While it can be a relevant factor it is not even close to an absolute
People can grow up in terrible, violent, crime-ridden places and be peaceful and law-abiding
Others can grow up wealthy and sheltered and in a loving environment and be a murderer or rapist
You should go back to what you are good at, being a dumbass troll who posts nonsensical, unrelated gibberish
Trying to sound smart just keeps shining a spot-light on how little you actually know
I took sociology at college and its quite basic that abusive and neglectful environments have an extremely negative effect on child development, and furthermore...

...wait...look who I'm typing to...

Once again you're wrong, but then why would you change the habit of a lunchtime?

What is it that you're good at? Remind us again...stacking shelves or whatnot isn't it?

When are you going to start trying to "sound smart"? I've been waiting a while now...

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#599628 Oct 8, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive /2012/04/us/table.selfdefense. laws/
Hey Catcher, is soliciting a prostitute legal in Texas?
Yes.

And that's the case in most U.S. jurisdictions.

Don't do it, or you'll end up a criminal, like Skom.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599629 Oct 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And some think that discipline means a violent assault.
It's interesting to say the least...
Yep

Although they really don't

That's why its so sad

The "ethics" not only are for show but appear to work on a massive sliding scale determined on who they are friends with

But yeah, interesting to say the least

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#599630 Oct 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Another red herring?
I was asking about you, not your opinion of me.
This is the third time I've asked you...
When you see "disciplining a child", do you only assume that means physical discipline?
Stop it.

You have admitted to using physical discipline on a six-month-old baby.

Case closed.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#599631 Oct 8, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no red herring.
The issue is and has always been your free and easy attitude to showing your hand to your children, and seeing absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I have a 4 year old daughter, the very idea of hitting her would never enter my head, but then she's extremely well behaved. She's used to being around intelligent civilised people, reads at the age of a 13 year old and speaks two languages.
Nurture trumps nature every time.
Would I hesitate to give her a time-out if she needed one? nope.
Would I say, "If you don't do as I say I will use my size to physically dominate you and cause you pain...remember this or it will happen again"...NOPE not on your life.
.. spanking or hitting a child under ANY circumstances only teaches him/her that they must obey and behave; not why a certain behavior is unacceptable ..

.. studies have shown that hitting or spanking a child encourages promotes aggressive behavior as an adult. The message a child receives is, "It's OK to hit someone." ..

.. RR has indicated his children fear him. RR fears God. Do you think there's any correlation between being hit or spanked as a child and fearing God ??..

.. last, "GOOD JOB," daddy ..

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599632 Oct 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop it.
You have admitted to using physical discipline on a six-month-old baby.
Case closed.
Sorry "counselor"

But you don't get to lump any definition you want under "physical discipline" as if there are no variances or degrees

Man you must be a terrible attorney

Poor unfortunate soul: "Um Mr Catcher, why aren't you challenging the fact that they are charging me with attempted murder when all I did was poke a guy in the chest?"

Fake Topix Trial Lawyer Catcher "well bottom line is you assaulted him. Case closed"

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#599633 Oct 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
Yes.
And that's the case in most U.S. jurisdictions.
Don't do it, or you'll end up a criminal, like Skom.
So this must be some kind of fake article then?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-...

Perhaps this other article is incorrect.

In Texas: "You can use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, when you reasonably believe that force is immediately needed to protect yourself from unlawful deadly force, aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery, so long as you are in a place you are legally allowed to be."

Where does this law apply? "Anywhere you legally have the right to be, so long as you are not engaged in unlawful conduct."

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/tab...

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#599634 Oct 8, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no red herring.
The issue is and has always been your free and easy attitude to showing your hand to your children, and seeing absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I have a 4 year old daughter, the very idea of hitting her would never enter my head, but then she's extremely well behaved. She's used to being around intelligent civilised people, reads at the age of a 13 year old and speaks two languages.
Nurture trumps nature every time.
Would I hesitate to give her a time-out if she needed one? nope.
Would I say, "If you don't do as I say I will use my size to physically dominate you and cause you pain...remember this or it will happen again"...NOPE not on your life.
I have never laid a hand on my son either.

To me, resorting to physical punishment, or physical domination of any sort, is an admission of weakness if not defeat.

Then again, we're not troglodytes.

RR on the other hand should not be allowed to participate in civil society.

He should stay in Riverside, redneck country.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599635 Oct 8, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>

.. RR has indicated his children fear him. RR fears God. Do you think there's any correlation between being hit or spanked as a child and fearing God ??..
.
LOL

Such a waste of bandwidth

Your correlations crack me up!

You engage in pseudo intellectual babble

Hitler engaged in pseudo intellectual babble

You know who Hitler is and some of the reasons he gave to justify his actions

I wonder if you engage in pseudo intellectual babble because Hitler did?

Since: May 11

Birmingham, UK

#599636 Oct 8, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
So if i am inside my house and someone is whacking my front door with a bat, you see that as pretty much the same thing as swinging the bat at me personally?
You can't charge someone or defend yourself based on what you think someone may do afterwards
If you shoot a guy while he is still hitting your front door, you are going to jail for murder. Same with your windshield
If he breaks down your front door, enters the house, and tries to hit you; then you can shoot them
If someone breaks the windshield, manually pulls it away from the car and then tries to hit you with something, then you can shoot them. Not before
That's simply the law
You must just be accustomed to being wrong.

There is no duty to flee or 'cower' in the face of a potentially lethal attack.

...but hey, that was just the US Supreme Court, what do they know? LMFAO

Seriously do you just make crap up about EVERY subject you talk about?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who are the most racist people towards inter-ra... 12 min spotlight on truth 3
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 22 min Correct 53,129
exhibitionism (Jul '13) 40 min HornySarah 10
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 hr Gabriel 992,348
Is God a "Bully" sometimes? 9 hr Doctor REALITY 26
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 hr Phooey 693,483
Savannah Brinson James: I'm really happy 4 U 10 hr Doctor REALITY 1
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 10 hr Holy Pipek 446,005
More from around the web