You're just sad.
You're just sad.
Good. Climb up his butt.
Your lack of a brain has long been noted. It seems you have a lot in common with M. Perhaps you've learned a lesson.
No, sad is the racist loser. That would be you, druggie.
You really are into that, aren't you?
I always thought that would make a great name for a car: The Dodge Vigilante!
FWIW, I agree totally with your definition. So does Merriam Webster:
Examples of VIGILANTE
Origin of VIGILANTE Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans First Known Use: 1856
Have you seen the promos for the new movie "Lockout?" They stole your idea for a prison in space (I think it was you).
-- Bobby G.
Is there anyone on the site who has personal knowledge of the circumstances or are all comments based upon varying media reports, talking heads, blogs, etc, that so far, is constantly being modified.
You are the one stretching. You don't know that Z was running do you? There are many possible scenarios that may have taken place.
Could easily have been one taunting the other.
Oh, I was walking forward when I went down on the back of my head.
Key though, is why he assaulted him. Did Z do something first? Still too soon to draw a conclusion.
Everyone carrying a gun has a permit? Knows or cares about the law? Wow, the newspaper has been getting it wrong for decades now.
Any further info on the neighbor whose survelliance camera caught some/all of the instance? Holding out for big pay from media, or just BS?
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I'm with you here, krw. Sharpton certainly at that time was a racebaiter obnoxious piece of shit. Most importantly he arranged his finances so that he didn't own anything, but was the mouthpiece of a group. Whether or not he has most of the blame in this case legally is abstract legalese. In my personal opinion he did have the blame for the whole affair/thing. An astute honest person would have advised the brawleys (no need for a capital) to get the facts then do what should be done (have been done).
Why throw a wet blanket on a perfectly good debate, by asking for facts?
Next, you're going to tell me that WD-40 isn't a lubricant. Or that duct tape isn't essential to civilized life.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
In my view, the probability that D.C. does NOT have either a castle doctrine or SYG law approaches certainity, given the city's attitude on collateral matters such as gun ownership.
But if we don't know isn't that the very definition of reasonable doubt. Should that part of the equation be ignored in this situation?
If this is really an attempt to inject logic into a Usenet thread, I am going to have to ask you to leave the area immediately. (g).
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:YridnQ14Z7Uyx-
3SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
LOL. Someone is taking all the "fun" out of this. For me the bottom line is that there is a dead kid, dead for what I see as no good reason. Whether or not he was fresh, or whatever.
But you really can't base our judicial system on what one person, even one of such Solomon-like qualities as yourself, deems no good reason (grin). He had just as much legal right to follow the kid as the kid had to be there. The only thing the courts need to sort is whether or not the kid turned and threatened him. If not, the charge is manslaughter. If he did the shooting is (legally anyway) justified. If there is reasonable doubt, then Z must be acquitted.
It's all Bush's fault?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
If this is really an attempt to inject logic into a Usenet thread, I am going to have to ask you to leave the area immediately. (g).
Given no contrary evidence, that's what happened. All evidence, so far, supports Z; perfectly justified.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.