stereotypejord wrote:
Id debate this but there's not much point, nobodys opinion changes...
Ill just say that I haven't cleaned my teeth since Wednesday and nobody has said anything!
Tu Stultus Es
Predicted and noted.
jord wrote:
Predicted and noted.
jord wrote:
Predicted and noted.
Tu Stultus Es
What brand of toothpaste?
Bullshit. OFC we would stand up for the employee if he was killed. Death did not need to play out.lowing wrote:
No the victim fought back......................and won, as it should be.Kmarion wrote:
Vigilante justice over toothpaste. Somebody call Bruce Wayne.
What I would like to point out is, if the tables were turned and the CVS employee were killed, there would be none here, standing up for the employee. Instead the topic would be the criminals circumstances, his "unlucky", or "unfortunate" back ground, his environment, all trying to rationalize his actions, blaming anything else except the criminal. A crime is committed and the criminal and not the victim is dead...If death was to play out in this crime, the right guy died.
It was only a matter of time.
Not once have I tried to rationalize theft. You live in your own world lowing.Kmarion wrote:
Jumping to conclusions is what you do best.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
if my world means taking responsibility blah blah blah
Tu Stultus Es
responsibility for your dental hygiene.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Employee should've just knocked the guy's teeth out. The irony would be overwhelming.
there you go blaming society again about how this guy wasnt afforded the proper dental hygiene skills being a product of the inner city. typical liberal
Tu Stultus Es
White guilt
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I did not say YOU Kmarion, again, stop being so defensive. and if there is any bullshit, it is your assertion that criminal sympathy does not outweigh victim sympathy in this forum. How many debates have there been over home invasions and the audacity the victim had for fighting back and protecting his home with deadly force? turning the victim into a "murderer" and the dead criminal into a victim.Kmarion wrote:
Bullshit. OFC we would stand up for the employee if he was killed. Death did not need to play out.lowing wrote:
No the victim fought back......................and won, as it should be.Kmarion wrote:
Vigilante justice over toothpaste. Somebody call Bruce Wayne.
What I would like to point out is, if the tables were turned and the CVS employee were killed, there would be none here, standing up for the employee. Instead the topic would be the criminals circumstances, his "unlucky", or "unfortunate" back ground, his environment, all trying to rationalize his actions, blaming anything else except the criminal. A crime is committed and the criminal and not the victim is dead...If death was to play out in this crime, the right guy died.
It was only a matter of time.Not once have I tried to rationalize theft. You live in your own world lowing.Kmarion wrote:
Jumping to conclusions is what you do best.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-10 15:17:44)
yup, it does......Sorry that notion disgusts you, but not surprisedeleven bravo wrote:
if my world means taking responsibility blah blah blah
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-10 15:18:16)
Man was killed over toothpaste, man was killed using his shoplifting as an excuse.
What separates you from a homeless and poor man, is a lie.
What separates you from a homeless and poor man, is a lie.
You quote me but you weren't addressing me? You said none here, as in no one including me. The circumstance matters. Entering someones private residence, there is a real and immediate threat. That situation I am more inclined to agree with you (Castle law, etc). Running from a CVS with a bottle of toothpaste? It's just not worth risking life.. including the employees.lowing wrote:
I did not say YOU Kmarion, again, stop being so defensive. and if there is any bullshit, it is your assertion that criminal sympathy does not outweigh victim sympathy in this forum. How many debates have there been over home invasions and the audacity the victim had for fighting back and protecting his home with deadly force? turning the victim into a "murderer" and the dead criminal into a victim.Kmarion wrote:
Bullshit. OFC we would stand up for the employee if he was killed. Death did not need to play out.lowing wrote:
No the victim fought back......................and won, as it should be.
What I would like to point out is, if the tables were turned and the CVS employee were killed, there would be none here, standing up for the employee. Instead the topic would be the criminals circumstances, his "unlucky", or "unfortunate" back ground, his environment, all trying to rationalize his actions, blaming anything else except the criminal. A crime is committed and the criminal and not the victim is dead...If death was to play out in this crime, the right guy died.
It was only a matter of time.Not once have I tried to rationalize theft. You live in your own world lowing.Kmarion wrote:
Jumping to conclusions is what you do best.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I quoted you in the sense that I was speaking with you, not about you.Kmarion wrote:
You quote me but you weren't addressing me? You said none here, as in no one including me. The circumstance matters. Entering someones private residence, there is a real and immediate threat. That situation I am more inclined to agree with you (Castle law, etc). Running from a CVS with a bottle of toothpaste? It's just not worth risking life.. including the employees.lowing wrote:
I did not say YOU Kmarion, again, stop being so defensive. and if there is any bullshit, it is your assertion that criminal sympathy does not outweigh victim sympathy in this forum. How many debates have there been over home invasions and the audacity the victim had for fighting back and protecting his home with deadly force? turning the victim into a "murderer" and the dead criminal into a victim.Kmarion wrote:
Bullshit. OFC we would stand up for the employee if he was killed. Death did not need to play out.
It was only a matter of time.
Not once have I tried to rationalize theft. You live in your own world lowing.
Still there is no denying that the bf2s brain trust has done what I said, victimized the criminal and criminalized the victim in many threads regarding such issues.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-10 15:27:31)
If you had said no one else.. it would have made a world of difference.
I'm sure they have. There are also some who don't always see it that way.
I'm sure they have. There are also some who don't always see it that way.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
well by saying "none" in this forum, wouldn't that also include me? The intent of what I meant was there and I think you know thatKmarion wrote:
If you had said no one else.. it would have made a world of difference.
I'm sure they have. There are also some who don't always see it that way.
No I didn't. When you said none would care I assumed you meant what you said.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If you touch anyone(without their permission) while at work the company which employs you can be held liable. It has happened before. Security guardtackles a shop lifter and holds him against his/her will. Shoplifter sues the company which employed the security guard(why would you sue a guard who makes <15k a year) and wins. And then the security guard gets fired.Poseidon wrote:
At my store, our company rules prohibit us from chasing shoplifters. I guess this is why.
Well then, my error for my bad choice of words. Hope I have cleared it up now.Kmarion wrote:
No I didn't. When you said none would care I assumed you meant what you said.
lol.. thoroughly.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Does not change what I ahve said about the majority of the forum members here and their history of criminalizing victims and victimizing criminals.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. thoroughly.
I am 100% for criminals being the ones who loose in any confrontation up to and including their deaths as a result of their criminal behavior.
THis has nothing to do with trial or justice. THis is before a trial or justice can be levied. It is the chance you take when you fuck with someone.
I wouldn't charge the employer, he just was dealing with a shoplifter and over did it
Lolmtb0minime wrote:
Employee should've just knocked the guy's teeth out. The irony would be overwhelming.
Which pisses me off, liberalism for ya though.13/f/taiwan wrote:
If you touch anyone(without their permission) while at work the company which employs you can be held liable. It has happened before. Security guardtackles a shop lifter and holds him against his/her will. Shoplifter sues the company which employed the security guard(why would you sue a guard who makes <15k a year) and wins. And then the security guard gets fired.Poseidon wrote:
At my store, our company rules prohibit us from chasing shoplifters. I guess this is why.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Hmm.. I know some auxiliary cops that flat out say if they walk or see a crime the average carrying citizen has more protection than the off him (insurance reasons). Interesting to see if there really was police presence.
Dude was a felon. These guys also have daddies and mommies as well as kids. They are huge disappointments to society. And they know what they are up against upon release. I will argue there are enough mechanisms in place for them to choose a different path. His decisions and actions were his to make and take. Vigilante justice? Meh' This is "Involuntary Manslaughter" worst case.
Yep... That's what I'd be charged with if I accidentally shot a bystander/victim while trying to intervene in a first degree forcible felony situation.
Dude was a felon. These guys also have daddies and mommies as well as kids. They are huge disappointments to society. And they know what they are up against upon release. I will argue there are enough mechanisms in place for them to choose a different path. His decisions and actions were his to make and take. Vigilante justice? Meh' This is "Involuntary Manslaughter" worst case.
Yep... That's what I'd be charged with if I accidentally shot a bystander/victim while trying to intervene in a first degree forcible felony situation.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-05-10 16:05:13)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I fail to see how someone deserves death for stealing toothpaste...and people are happy with that. People also see cutting peoples hands of for theft barbaric, but thems the double standards.
Yes, he was in the wrong. All you had to do was call it in, or restrain him before he left the shop. Once he's left the shop, it's not your problem. Verdict will probably come back as manslaughter.
Yes, he was in the wrong. All you had to do was call it in, or restrain him before he left the shop. Once he's left the shop, it's not your problem. Verdict will probably come back as manslaughter.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella