Another coward magically becomes a tough guy when holding a gun

Superfreak said:
and AGAIN, I point to what was stated in your article. Which you continue to ignore. So if you want, you can look up to my earlier responses as it is already addressed.
Click to expand...

So that would be "NO".

You can't find a comment from an eyewitness at the scene stating as much, and there's nothing in the article itself that says the rafter grabbed the gunman before being shot.

Nor does anyone say he "tried to grab" "lunged for" or anything else to the shooter before being shot.

But just the same, you're going to continue to pretend there was.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is the part Zappa wants to pretend doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it WASN'T private property.

The yard in front of people's homes is also considered private property, but when sidewalks are present, then ANYONE can walk on them if they wish without the threat of being shot.

The word for today is:

E-A-S-E-M-E-N-T.

It also happens to be the word SF desperately is trying to ignore right now.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So that would be "NO".

You can't find a comment from an eyewitness at the scene stating as much, and there's nothing in the article itself that says the rafter grabbed the gunman before being shot.

Nor does anyone say he "tried to grab" "lunged for" or anything else to the shooter before being shot.

But just the same, you're going to continue to pretend there was.
Click to expand...


like you are going to pretend that he was 'stepping to his side' even though the article clearly states he was in between the guy with the rocks and the guy with the gun?

Again moron, as I stated earlier and you ignored... which is more plausible... that the guy with a gun 'jerked away' because:

1) The guy moved to his side as you claim
2) The guy grabbed the arm of the gun man or tried to as I stated?

Which of those two is more likely to cause someone to jerk away?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I never claimed it WASN'T private property.

The yard in front of people's homes is also considered private property, but when sidewalks are present, then ANYONE can walk on them if they wish without the threat of being shot.

The word for today is:

E-A-S-E-M-E-N-T.

It also happens to be the word SF desperately is trying to ignore right now.
Click to expand...


again moron... what you are ignoring is that the EASEMENT is for the RIVER and what is covered by water... the only dispute in terms of land is the sand bar given that during parts of the year it may be under water and thus a part of the RIVER bed at times. The TREES on the land above the sand bar are NOT a part of the easement. Thus if the man was in the trees, he was trespassing on land not a part of the easement.

Easement doesn't mean any part of the mans property. It has constraints.
 
Superfreak said:
again moron... what you are ignoring is that the EASEMENT is for the RIVER and what is covered by water... the only dispute in terms of land is the sand bar given that during parts of the year it may be under water and thus a part of the RIVER bed at times. The TREES on the land above the sand bar are NOT a part of the easement. Thus if the man was in the trees, he was trespassing on land not a part of the easement.

Easement doesn't mean any part of the mans property. It has constraints.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you are saying that someone who is ridiculed has the right to kill his tormentor.
 
Superfreak said:
again moron... what you are ignoring is that the EASEMENT is for the RIVER and what is covered by water... the only dispute in terms of land is the sand bar given that during parts of the year it may be under water and thus a part of the RIVER bed at times. The TREES on the land above the sand bar are NOT a part of the easement. Thus if the man was in the trees, he was trespassing on land not a part of the easement.

Easement doesn't mean any part of the mans property. It has constraints.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you're going to presume to tell everyone how far back into the woods the guy was when he stopped to pee?

Was there ANY mention of distance from the river in the articles?

Any at all?

And FYI:the easement is for the river AND the land ADJACENT TO the river.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Exactly!

Having a gun just means you don't have the stones to handle a situation without resorting to the threat of deadly force.

Just try explaining that to STY.
Click to expand...

Thats why I would never get into a real confrontation anymore, most people today under the age of 40 don't have the balls to go out back and kick the shit out of each other like we used to do 20-35 yrs ago, they are pussies so they just shoot.
 
OCA said:
Thats why I would never get into a real confrontation anymore, most people today under the age of 40 don't have the balls to go out back and kick the shit out of each other like we used to do 20-35 yrs ago, they are pussies so they just shoot.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I explained to my all American wrestler sons!
Run from confrontation, assholes looking for shit want to shoot not fight.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It seems to me that you are saying that someone who is ridiculed has the right to kill his tormentor.
Click to expand...

Where in the hell did you come up with that nonsense?

1) They were trespassing on land that was marked do not trespass.
2) They were pissing on this guys property
3) He asked them to leave and clearly had a gun on him when asking them to do so.
4) They decided in their infinite wisdom to escalate the situation, one picking up rocks and talking 'tough', the other approaching the guy with the gun and apparently trying to 'calm down the guy with the gun' rather than just getting the fuck back in their canoes and leaving his property. The story states clearly (from the wife of the dead moron) that the gunman jerked back, which typically happens when someone either grabs you or tries to do so.
5) They were drunk according to the witness who wasn't a family member of the deceased moron.


None of it needed to happen. Both parties could have reacted differently. But trying to blame the gun and property owner and scream that guns are evil is simply the fear mongers trying to rally their parrots to chirp away that it is a lack of gun laws that caused this.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Oh, so now you're going to presume to tell everyone how far back into the woods the guy was when he stopped to pee?

Was there ANY mention of distance from the river in the articles?

Any at all?

And FYI:the easement is for the river AND the land ADJACENT TO the river.
Click to expand...


The question in this case is whether the Darts were actually on Crocker’s property. State law in Missouri dictates that waterfront properties extend to the middle of the river on which they’re situated. Much like a road, these rivers are considered public easements, available for use by all. But the land immediately adjacent is usually considered private property, and Crocker had posted signs to that effect at regular intervals along the vegetation line. However, given that the location of the vegetation line changes from year to year, Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.
Click to expand...

Try reading that again.
 
The Dude said:
That's exactly what I explained to my all American wrestler sons!
Run from confrontation, assholes looking for shit want to shoot not fight.
Click to expand...


BINGO!

Too many today are scared of confrontation unless they've got the clear upper hand.

A gun gives faux "courage" to those too scared to settle things like a man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top