13511

And once one has resorted to name calling, they lose the argument.

I've been a firm supporter of that outlook... simply ignore a person and a lot of the drama disappears. I haven't been back over to that site since everyone had agreed to just let him be.

Generally happens that way when one's ass got wiped. History is written by the victor, and historically always has been. Or are you trying to say that the Japanese spirit has always been one of peace and reconciliation. Pretty sure for most of it's history it was a little more war loving. Really don't care for the government to be concerned with self-reflection when it comes to defense of the nation. Think you will find that Japan is similar also.... or are you saying that Japan is perfectly fine with what NK is doing currently and sending rainbows and lollipops to them? And a for your Iraq vid's... hell boy, if there is a declared war on, the activity to prosecute it that is going on in Iraq is MUCH less than what it was in WW2. As the saying goes - war is hell. Personally I say pull out and let them carry themselves to hell in a hand basket. If they can't take care of themselves then tough. But, if those countries then allow action (even terroristic ones) to occur against the US, simply declare official war on the country and prosecute it to the fullest. Just a little sample below of Dresden. http://de.evangelischer-widerstand.de/pictures/documents/D5305/D5305-1.jpg http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ger-Dresden-Firebombed-Family.jpg Oh, and let's not forget to document those peace loving Japanese that get a woodie from bladed instrument use apparently. [ATTACH=full]1587._xfImport[/ATTACH]

There is more than that... the above pertains strictly to "self defense" but doesn't go into (fully) when deadly force can be used. If you notice, that doesn't even go into the part of protection of property (theft/criminal mischief) at night. Was wondering if you'd get suckered in and you did. Thanks for playing. Here ya' go... from one of your "official interwebz lawyer sites" that goes into an easy to understand example. Instead of charging with a chair, replace threatening with a flame throwing device. And before you go "well, they didn't overturn his sentence", the pertinent part is And here from yet another attorney And here - from yet another attorney Oh, and it's either defense attorney or prosecutor. A criminal attorney typically would not be practicing in Texas (or probably anywhere else) as they would be disbarred, but I think we know what you were trying to say. That's why it's typically left to a judge/jury/grand jury to determine if self-defense was justified or not. The individual may be charged with an offense, but may skate on a self defense (3rd party) charge... whether you like it or not. The dismissal would depend on if the triers of fact determine that waving an item discharging a 2-4 foot flame is a deadly weapon or not and that a reasonable (ordinary) person felt that a 3rd party was being threatened by the use of said deadly weapon if they have found that it qualifies as such. Again, that would apply to Texas statutes - I don't know about where it occurred at as not all jurisdictions are so liberal in the allowance of use of deadly force for protection of property/person. The same ability (law) that gives a police officer the right to use deadly force to protect a 3rd party extends to civilians to protect 3rd parties. If law enforcement was not able to use deadly force to protect third parties then in many situations then an officer would have to sit and watch someone be murdered since they were not able to prevent it with the use of deadly force (think sniper in a hostage situation).

Instead of paraphrasing, here is the actual law in Texas Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.31 | FindLaw Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.32 | FindLaw Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.33 | FindLaw Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.34 | FindLaw Good luck reading and comprehending, as there are no pictures or videos involved.

Like I said, my knowledge is first hand from enforcement - yours is from reading on the interwebz. You seriously need to learn how to read and comprehend as pictographs won't get the point across for your enlightenment. Let me once more emphasize Repeating the same points gets rather tiresome. It's readily apparent that you don't fit the definition provided above (ordinary person of average intelligence and sound mind) so your perception of reasonable is drastically different from what the majority of society has.

Enforcement of said laws... And if you actually conversed or had first hand knowledge you would know that the perception (read belief) of the shooter is paramount to prosecution (and the defense thereof). I don't have to "read it on the interwebz" as I actually lived with it for 1.5 decades.

Hey, leave us alone.. we are having fun messing with his mind. Mention discouraged and what does he say? [ATTACH=full]1573._xfImport[/ATTACH] Oh, that persecution complex kicks into full gear.

And the reasonable belief comes in when when a person is facing someone (that they don't know especially) with a flame ejecting object that has a high probability of injuring them. The individual that has the flame emitting item is NOT a street performer doing a performance but an individual who's stability is in question using the item to intimidate/threaten others. Oh, and typically deadly force against you is NOT the only requirement... it can also be something that can cause serious bodily injury (extensive burns to the body would fall into that area). Sorry, just because the guy was a dumb fuck waving a home made flame thrower around doesn't mean he can get a walk on threatening others, especially considering when you watch his actions. Don't know about the state that it occurred it, but it will not surprise me if the shooter's defense attorney doesn't use defense of 3rd party as his rebuttal.... and probably get either a dismissal or a not guilty verdict. And most reasonable persons would think that someone forcing a flaming can of material towards someone puts them in fear of serious bodily injury or death. We know that what a normal reasonable person would think doesn't apply to you, as the actionable word "reasonable" doesn't apply. What's that old saying.. play with fire and you may get burnt?

Whether a person WAS burned or not does not matter... you have a very difficult time in dealing with the intricacies of self defense by an civilian - that is readily apparent. THEY don't have the same requirements as LEO's do, mainly because they have not received the level of training, so their expectation of reaction is lower. It deals with the perception by the party of the POSSIBILITY of the injury. You don't have to frigging wait until it occurs.

No, you need to look a little closer. The facts are based upon the victims perception, not what the offender was thinking. Self defense/defense of third party is based upon the perception of the one taking the defensive action. Point being, don't threaten people with possibility of being injured and you don't have to worry (and you are trying to segue away into what the police do and the video is of a citizen of the US, not LEO). I figured you would be tired of being pwned by now, but I can keep this up as long as you desire to be made to look idiotic.

YOU are not the arbiter of what an individual feels is immediate danger. That is up to the individual being "threatened". That belief is then either ruled as justified (no charges filed), rules as questionable (charges filed), ruled as justified (jury/judge returns not guilty verdict) or ruled as unjustified (jury/judge returns guilty verdict). There is an implied threat there because that distance can be closed within less time than people can react to. The same theory is why someone with a knife within 21 feet and is determined to BE a threat as soon as they step towards you. It is the perception of the "victim" (in this case, the one the flame is pointed at) that is the determining factor, not the intent of the person being the idiot and waving the flame around. I'm sure you'll find anyone that believes in self-protection would have the same philosophy.. and nope, the government wouldn't be paying me to do it, I'd be doing it for free.

I just feel so "discouraged"...:rolleyes:

You can set up a group that puts all users posts into moderation and then have that group as a users secondary. I used to do similar with a "quit being a shithead" group I had set up on my XF sites. I've done similar on the IPS site. Takes manually putting the user into that secondary group.

This guy is really good... if you like guitar, do a search on youtube for him

Let's talk unique.

Statement with no supporting evidence from the video you linked to. That is a supposition held by you. Not irrelevant. If, prior to the discharge he had ran up on someone "spraying" the flame towards them then the action would be totally justified. You are trying to argue facts not in evidence. What IS in evidence is the one carrying the flag apparently DID feel threatened by the poor helpless idiot using a can as a flamethrower [ATTACH=full]1565._xfImport[/ATTACH] Sure looks like the one outlined in blue is drawing backwards... if he wasn't worried/in fear then that would not be occurring. And I wonder why the ones behind that one outlined in blue aren't continuing to walk by if they aren't feeling a tad bit "threatened". Oh, look... he's just trying to turn his flag into a torch [ATTACH=full]1566._xfImport[/ATTACH] So, your selective vision ONLY sees what you want to see, you miss the byplay in the background. If you notice, the shooter is looking directly at this prior to discharging the firearm. Once again, problems understanding the written word. Let me make it simple. You point a fucking flaming can of anything at me in close proximity and I'll shoot your fucking ass until your action ceases. You know, very similar to what those pictures above with the pretty color highlight boxes shows.

Don't know, and really don't care. Not everyone walks the same path... hell, look at you. Your path led you down the one that involves requiring pictures to be able to gain knowledge and the inability to obtain it from the written word.

The desire of what type music to play remains. May songs are actually NOT strumming (that's like performing as a backup singer). They are in the LEAD guitar role that most songs are known by. vs Both use chords, but one uses fingerpicking and the other uses strumming. Can you tell the difference? Oh, and the banjo is being used by my wife. I'm playing the with guitar, harmonica and keyboard (the keyboard very little) right now.

Yeah, I have - in fact, a couple of times What did the baboon say? (which infers music theory) What did the baboon say? (again infers music theory since that's the "foundation" of music) What did the baboon say? (which directly states which path I chose). Please, read and then comprehend.. it's not that difficult to do. I realize pictures are not involved, but the language used is not that difficult to understand and follow.

Oh, and Ms. Grammerly says "Why ARE my POSTS moved" or "Why IS my POST moved"

Here ya' go. 14 reasons everyone should take music lessons - Metro Arts Maybe it would be beneficial for you.. pay special attention to #4 in that list. And most good instructors will ask you what you are there for, simply to learn to play the guitar or if you actually want to learn the theory behind music (which again opens up more than the guitar). I chose the latter option when my instructor asked. And as I said, it was because I want to be able to apply it to MORE than simply the guitar. Once you learn the theory behind the music, the rest is gravy - but it is rather "boring" to learn it but that's where perseverance comes in. I'm not a teenager (which is the age many "get into" guitars) and have bypassed that need to "mimic my friends".

I follow a path that many others have followed in the past. I have other instruments here than simply guitars (coronet, harmonica, keyboard, banjo, mandolin) that the theory will apply to. First you have to build up the foundation then you can start "decorating" it. And sounds like you are suffering from ageism. How typically liberal.