Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#599841 Oct 9, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you did. You were trying to smash the windshield so you could get to him and beat him to death. Your own actions make you a criminal and you should be in prison by your own rules.
No trial, no lawyers, just lock you up!
RR's intent was to harm the man in the vehicle. What else could his intent of been?
If not harm physically ( cough)- then surely mentally.

I can't even believe the argument of the "durability and breakdown" of said windshield
is even a factor in RR's assault.

In a civil society- is it really ok. to hit windshields w golf clubs when there is
an occupant in the vehicle?
Yes? No??

The arguments these two fellas are making in RR's defense are outrageous!
Wouldn't believe it if I wasn't reading it..
- pitiful!- the both of them ( that includes Skom).

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#599842 Oct 9, 2013
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
RR's intent was to harm the man in the vehicle. What else could his intent of been?[[[SNIP]]]
OMG you're doing it, too?

What's with all the assumptions??

Judged:

18

18

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#599843 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG you're doing it, too?
What's with all the assumptions??
Ok. To be fair.
Did you possibly think the windshield was a golf ball?

Judged:

16

16

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#599844 Oct 9, 2013
Le_le wrote:
Ok. To be fair.
Did you possibly think the windshield was a golf ball?
Do you know what "The Club" is? That little, red, metal thing that clamps onto the steering wheel to prevent theft? That's what I used, not a golf club. I've written that several times. Stop assuming so damn much.

I could've very easily hit that man. Very easily. I didn't want to, I only wanted to hit his windshield.

He broke mine, in haste I figured revenge was a good policy. I was wrong.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#599845 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what "The Club" is? That little, red, metal thing that clamps onto the steering wheel to prevent theft? That's what I used, not a golf club. I've written that several times. Stop assuming so damn much.
I could've very easily hit that man. Very easily. I didn't want to, I only wanted to hit his windshield.
He broke mine, in haste I figured revenge was a good policy. I was wrong.
I'm offering my opinions to what's being posted.

I wonder why you have shared such stories as this , And do not expect the many here witnessing
your "Christianity " on display- aren't going to question your admitted-
bad behaviors?
You want sympathy because you have racist thoughts. You laugh at the
vulnerabilities of women and even homosexuals..

Do you honestly believe when shouting "Jesus is your Lord"-
you can behave as you portray yourself- and not be called on it- on topix??

You tell us you post all day from work.
Job well done.. I suppose.

Have a nice day RR.
Enjoy your lunch break..

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599846 Oct 9, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is yes - as long as the person felt threatened, and even if it's found later - there may not have been an actual threat.
"Our current law doesn't change anything with respect to the presumption of fear," Nashville attorney David Raybin said. "Home, car, business _whatever you want to call it _ you have a presumption of fear with somebody breaking in and you can shoot him."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/poli...
"In 2012, Metro police reported three justifiable-homicide cases that did not involve police or domestic incidents.
Those included a man who fired on an armed intruder forcing his way into the man's apartment, a man who shot an armed robber in a parking lot and man who killed an armed intruder on his front porch.
In each case, the Metro District Attorney's Office determined the person who pulled the trigger had done nothing illegal.
" http://www.wbir.com/news/article/285816/2/Ten...
The law also says it will "...provide immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others or property..." http://www.rangemaster.com/publications/artic...
Notice, it specifies, "property".
More detail:
"More specifically, the “stand your ground” defense in Tennessee is broken into two subsections of that law. The first applicable section of the code states:
Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322[1], a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.
Tenn. Code Ann.§39-11-611(b)(1)
That section states:
Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
Tenn. Code Ann.§39-11-611(b)(2)
The Tennessee Pattern Jury instructions explain that “reasonable belief” does not mean that the person claiming self-defense must actually have been in physical danger, but only that he or she reasonably felt that he or she was in jeopardy. The defendant only has to show that he or she was actually in fear of serious bodily injury or death and that the fear was reasonable under the circumstances(...)
Strengthening the “stand your ground” code sections is Tenn. Code Ann.§39-11-203, which provides that(...)the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being prosecuted did not act in self-defense."
http://brownandroberto.wordpress.com/2013/07/...
It's pretty clear.
The legal system in Tennessee disagrees with your opinion.
Wrong

Read the beginning of your own post the one before this

""a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury."

Do you see the word IMMINENT?

Your comment here isn't even close to legal

"The answer is yes - as long as the person felt threatened, and even if it's found later - there may not have been an actual threat."

It would never have been considered reasonable if there was never even a threat and there was no imminent dange

Sorry Scaritual, people don't get to go around killing people because they got freaked out

They have to show why it reasonable to presume they had to fear for their life and they were in IMMINENT danger

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#599847 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Not just if you feel threatened
You can only use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger
And the post I responded to said deadly force can be used to protect property in some states
It is not allowed in any state to protect property
If there exists an additional element of the theft or damage that would allow use of deadly force, then the focus would go to that element
But the statement that deadly force can be used in some states to protect property is absolutely false
You are mistaken.

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." Texas Pnal Code, 9:14.

Florida law entitles deadly force, when necessary to protect your property or that of others if you have legal responsibility for that property.

I do NOT recommend this.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599849 Oct 9, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea why people are engaging this twonk.
The judge cannot exclude self defence as a defence if he just 'doesn't like it' it's for the jury to decide and the comparator is the 'reasonable man'.
Would a 'reasonable man' feel that their life was in imminent danger.
All of this word vomit is purely self agrandisment from the peanut gallery.
LOL

The dumbass troll actually gets something close to right

But its not would a reasonable man feel his life is in imminent danger but rather would it be reasonable for a person to feel their life was in imminent danger

The reaction is being judged as reasonable not the man

But you are right it needs to be reasonable and the danger needs to be IMMINENT

And someone pounding on the outside of a locked door would not make the danger imminent

Your group is pretty prideful for being so freaking stupid

But you came close at least. Much closer than Scaritual. Then again, you had my posts telling you all this already

You can regurgitate, that I know

:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599850 Oct 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You are mistaken.
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." Texas Pnal Code, 9:14.
Florida law entitles deadly force, when necessary to protect your property or that of others if you have legal responsibility for that property.
I do NOT recommend this.
Do you understand what you are reading?

Like I already told you, you can NOT use deadly force to protect property UNLESS there is an additional element of the crime that justifies deadly force

And then you go and post exactly that

Read #1 and #2 of your own post

The protection of personal property ALONE is NEVER enough reason to use deadly force. ONly if while someone is in the process of doing that and they engage in additional actions that would allow someone to use deadly force is deadly force allowed

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599851 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the 2nd time I have seen someone compare whacking a safety glass windshield one time to driving a 4000 pound car as a missile into another car
Please tell me you see the difference
Which would you prefer, a golf club to the face or a car hitting your car at 15 MPH ?

I'll take the crazy lady in a car to RR as a golfing partner.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599852 Oct 9, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm all for parent's raising kids according to their individual values, however I reserve the right to outrage when they do things which are just plain WRONG.
When a JW couple whithold blood products and a child dies because of their 'values' then I would hope everyone gets offended.
When a christian couple who eschew any medicine at all allow 2 children to die because medicine is not comensurate with their 'values' I would again hope that EVERYONE gets offended. These values are passed to the offspring of that society.
When muslims send their female children back home for a 'holiday' to have their clitori removed or their genitals mutilated I couldn't care less about their values. Once again if allowed to continue these values will be perpetuated.
When the police have to have the fire service on hand when they rescue an indian girl(because the girl will undoubtedly be doused in some kind of fire accelerant and the crowd which gathers will attempt to throw matches) who has been chained to a pipe so she doesn't flee the geriatric she's been arranged to marry I reserve the right to tell the parents so stick their 'values' up their arse.
Extreme? Maybe, but when you have idiots raising little idiots who will grow into big idiots then MY values state that no support whatsoever should be offered to such a family dynamic.
PARENTS DO NOT OWN THEIR CHILDREN!!!! and society will eventually have to suffer the little darlings when they'd turned on daddy and returned his 'discipline' in spades and are hard wired for a fight.
I agree. It has little to do with a gentle spanking though.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599853 Oct 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You are mistaken.
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." Texas Pnal Code, 9:14.
Florida law entitles deadly force, when necessary to protect your property or that of others if you have legal responsibility for that property.
I do NOT recommend this.
Please link your quotes too

"It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference. See State v. Metcalfe, 212 N.W. 382 (Iowa 1927).

I don't care what a state penal code may have said. That is overruled when something goes to the supreme court or by precedent. I'm surprise Texas didn't say originally it is ok to shoot someone for looking at you. You need case law Mac, not what legislatures used to have as law for states

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599854 Oct 9, 2013
Ricky F wrote:
<quoted text>It puts the lotion on!
its skin or else it gets the hose again!

LOL

Hey Ricky!

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599855 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not the only one. I find it ridiculous too.
Did you see the article that Ben posted? Said it "must be RR's wife".
WTF?
She was just 'killing a car' and a piece of cement. Poor lady murdered by evil cops for doing something that should have been 'expunged'.

Sounds exactly like your excuse...except she's dead.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599856 Oct 9, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Which would you prefer, a golf club to the face or a car hitting your car at 15 MPH ?
I'll take the crazy lady in a car to RR as a golfing partner.
Did RR hit someone in the face with a golf club? Or did he hit a highly durable safety glass windshield one time?

And where did you get 15 mph from?

This is getting silly

If the question is would i rather have my car hit by another car while I am in it or my windshield struck one time with a golf club, yes I am picking the golfclub every day of the week and 2x on Sunday

Apples and oranges really as one can hurt me and the other can't

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599857 Oct 9, 2013
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
....
At this point...it has nothing to do with Christian vs nonChristian...it is about seeing who can piss the furthest.
Of course!

I tried a few times to get a real discussions going to no avail.

I gave up trying.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599858 Oct 9, 2013
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
You said you spanked your child'- of 6 months old- because
he was not behaving in a restaurant.
I know you'll deny this just as you deny every reference I make to YOUR
very own words.-
--like your kids not doing the dishes before they went home (their home)
to their mom ( your " egg donor") and your current wife being upset about it.
Anyways- who knows why he was misbehaving? Who cares? You spanked him
and let him ,as a baby, know- you suck.
You should have left the restaurant taken, your son home and fed him
there. Was your outing that important you had to educate a BABY on
restaurant etiquette
lol..
Yeah, I'm sure it was a "tap". And just one time.
Ok.?
Just promise you never disciplined your children w a golf club.
Your temper seems a bit suspect and out if control.
JMO.
Nicely put!

Thanks.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599859 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not participating in the name calling/slandering that you talked about,....
Yes you do... and you lie about it as well. Thanks for proving why most of us think your an ahole.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599860 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG you're doing it, too?
What's with all the assumptions??
The same ones the cops assumed when they shot that woman in DC.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599861 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what "The Club" is? That little, red, metal thing that clamps onto the steering wheel to prevent theft? That's what I used, not a golf club. I've written that several times. Stop assuming so damn much.....
No you didn't.

Another new story by you.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min Mr Wiggley 52,693
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min PadMark 693,417
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 31 min aintnogods 992,261
Trump Is Playing Mr. Grinch with Renewable Energy 35 min Poster Child for ... 18
Skype gay sex (Dec '14) 39 min austin5410 31
Allah is Satan hiding behind the name 55 min Doctor REALITY 38
Poll Have you ever secretly sniffed a woman's panties (Apr '09) 1 hr alexro 31
More from around the web