• Independence Day

    Happy Independence Day, Guest!

Does anyone else see a problem with this article?

No, it's called turning the other cheek.

Haven't you read the bible?
ah, but the constitution and the bible have nothing to do with each other.
And the Second Amendment STILL protects my right to have a gun if I wanted (And cleared the appropriate legal hurdles).
 
I believe the Father did nothing wrong, as usual I doubt racism is actually involved, but I question the Provacative Act Law. That's my stance on all of this.

I'll admit when it comes to Racism, I'm usually wearing rose colored glasses.
 
If a black owner killed a group of black thugs, I can accept that.

But when a white person does it? NO. They'd been far too much persecution, to allow such thing.
Hunh? :huh: This is a very racist stance.
 
zero u are either really young, bad at sarcasm, overly Politically Correct, just so insanely stupid or an amalgam of them all but either way you are talking ****
 
his statement the guy made is racist.

the charge is not.

its one of those "Weird Laws" things you gotta go WTF at.
 
No, it's called turning the other cheek.

Haven't you read the bible?

So you would simply allow yourself, your wife, and your children to be robbed and threatened in order to turn the other cheek? The father made the right call. I'm not sure about the law. I personally think this is much ado about nothing as it is likely just scare charges in order to get the suspect to plead guilty to the lesser charges.
 
Edmonds' stepson, Dale Lafferty, suffered brain damage from the baseball bat beating he took during the melee. The 19-year-old lives in a rehabilitation center and can no longer feed himself.

Yeah, I'm not feeling any symapthy for these scumbags.

Hughes' mother, San Francisco schoolteacher Judy Hughes, said she believes the group didn't intend to rob the family, just buy marijuana. She called the case against her son a "legal lynching."

Were they going to buy it with a baseball bat ? :huh: :whatever:
 
exactly these people who are blind to the **** their kids do is half the ****ing reason we have bastards like that out there
 
And does that mean you have to shoot them in the back?

If someone came into my house and harmed one of my kids (which I have 3) in any way they would be shot in the back, front and every other direction imaginable.

The outside sentiments of political correctness end at my door when you enter my world, harm the ones that count on me to protect them and I love and you are assed out.

I could care less what color the assailants are, in the end they all bleed the same.
 
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/robber...16094709990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001#cmntbgn

im confused ha. they got what they deserve but im still confused

It's called depraved indifference. The guy exactly what he deserves. When you commit a crime that leads to the death of two other people then hell yeah, your ******ed ass needs locked up for all that it caused. I'm so sick of hearing of people screaming racism everytime someone who is NOT white does a crime and gets punished for it. HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK IT MAKES WHITE PEOPLE FEEL? I'll tell you how it makes me feel...like people are being racist against whites because we can do no right. Come on.
 
If someone came into my house and harmed one of my kids (which I have 3) in any way they would be shot in the back, front and every other direction imaginable.

The outside sentiments of political correctness end at my door when you enter my world, harm the ones that count on me to protect them and I love and you are assed out.

I could care less what color the assailants are, in the end they all bleed the same.
EXACTLY! Thank you.
 
Raybia, you know I respect you, so what's your problem with the article?

3 blacks guys rob a white family.

The father who has shoots two of the robbers in the back cold dead (Which I could understand)


The third guy escapes only to get charge not with just burglary but with murder of the two other robbers.

Please somebody explain how this is not a problem.
 
3 blacks guys rob a white family.

The father who has shoots two of the robbers in the back cold dead (Which I could understand)


The third guy escapes only to get charge not with just burglary but with murder of the two other robbers.

Please somebody explain how this is not a problem.
He's getting charged because of a law called... I think its the "Provacative Acts law". The idea is that if his criminal actions could forseeably lead to deaths, then he is responsible for those deaths, no matter if he intended to kill them or if he himself performed the lethal act.

I'll agree it sounds a bit vague, but not completely messed up.
 
3 blacks guys rob a white family.

The father who has shoots two of the robbers in the back cold dead (Which I could understand)


The third guy escapes only to get charge not with just burglary but with murder of the two other robbers.

Please somebody explain how this is not a problem.

Of course it's a problem, the whole thing was a problem from the time they broke in. Because these knuckleheads brought the problem on to themselves by initiating the crime in the first place, they do bear some responsibility. Enter this old law, The Provocative Act doctrine. The families want someone to blame. Who else are they going to charge with murder? Nobody is going to convict the homeowner. The only one left is the other criminal, who should have been able to foresee the logical outcome.

It makes sense when you think about it. If they just hadn't been doing what they shouldn't have been doing, none of it would have happened. They brought it on themselves, should have been able to see that something like this could possibly happen .. so it actually fits that law.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"