A teenager knocked on the wrong door. Now he’s dead, and the homeowner is accused of murder.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Gun violence was the hot issue I came to this site on. It was right after the Bob Costas commentary (about gun culture) and right before Sandy Hook. So yeah I have done a wee bit of research, and I've certainly seen this gun fetishist "blame the victim" pattern before. It's getting to be old hat.

The only people blaming the victim are you and BrainDead.

Hint: the victim is not the illegally drunk guy trying to break into an innocent man's house.

 

[2aguy]

Same thing happened with the girl in Detroit and the German exchange student in Montana. Threads were abuzz with gun nut apologists trying to rationalize murder. Both of those guys got convicted and sentenced though, which just shows how much of a fringe element a message board like this draws ---- shooting people for 'having conversations', 'smoking pot' and 'being a slut'.

The German exchange student was set up, but you already knew that, or maybe you didn't, since you've aptly demonstrated you don't know shit about this case, but that didn't stop you from condemning the victim here.

Either way, your argument is invalid.

Yes I already knew that --- I POSTED it in the thread to the denials of the gun fetishists. Thanks for confirming I was right all along.

So why did you bring it up when it has no relevancy or similarities to the case at hand? Running out of ammo?

HOW does it "not have relevance"??

Montana: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner convicted, imprisoned.
Louisiana: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner charged, but only after Japan protests, gets acquitted, then loses civil trial.
Michigan: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner convicted, imprisoned.

now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner arraigned for murder.

Stop me when you see a pattern.

But "we don't have a gun culture".

357,000,000 guns in private hands....

1,500,000 defensive gun uses every year....

8,124 gun murders in 2014

505 accidental gun deaths in 2014....

So our gun culture is not a problem.....we aren't even talking about 1% of the law abiding gun owners making a mistake since 90% of the 8,124 gun murders are committed by people with long histories of violence, crime and felonies.....

Make you lame gun culture comments when we get closer to 25%.....that might actually make your case......

Thug culture...the real problem.......that makes up the majority of those 8,124 gun murders.....you guys could not care less about.........stop thugs by actually prosecuting them.....and our gun violence rate is at or below Europe's.....and our inner cities would be better places for minorities in democrat voting districts to live....

 

[Pogo]

Then why can't you answer the question? What such words exist?

Why don't you just ask how many possible combinations you can come up with in a series of 118 numbers in any given order because that's akin to what you're asking here. Given the vast amount of possible combinations of words in the English language, your question is rhetorical, but you already knew that too. You're doing a piss poor job of making your case so you're resorting to obfuscation and getting butt hurt nobody will take the bait.

Hey, it was your idea, now you're beating a hasty retreat from it. Are you admitting the communication, whatever it was, has no relevance? Because if you are the followup is --- why did you bring it up?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Drunk teenager starts breaking windows in someone's home. Looks like a good shoot to me.

You should go house to house banging on doors. Let us know who's a 'good shot'.

she would have pissed herself if this kid was knocking on her door ....

 

[Pogo]

Same thing happened with the girl in Detroit and the German exchange student in Montana. Threads were abuzz with gun nut apologists trying to rationalize murder. Both of those guys got convicted and sentenced though, which just shows how much of a fringe element a message board like this draws ---- shooting people for 'having conversations', 'smoking pot' and 'being a slut'.

The German exchange student was set up, but you already knew that, or maybe you didn't, since you've aptly demonstrated you don't know shit about this case, but that didn't stop you from condemning the victim here.

Either way, your argument is invalid.

Yes I already knew that --- I POSTED it in the thread to the denials of the gun fetishists. Thanks for confirming I was right all along.

So why did you bring it up when it has no relevancy or similarities to the case at hand? Running out of ammo?

HOW does it "not have relevance"??

Montana: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner convicted, imprisoned.
Louisiana: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner charged, but only after Japan protests, gets acquitted, then loses civil trial.
Michigan: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner convicted, imprisoned.

now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat. Homeowner arraigned for murder.

Stop me when you see a pattern.

But "we don't have a gun culture".

Oh, so you've also convicted the home owner without evidence or his right to trial. Did your psychic vibes tell you he perceived no threat?

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[7]


This form of the argument is as follows:

1. Source S makes claim C.
2. Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
3. Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"

Another logical fallacy. Would you like to keep going because you're getting very good at these.

"Convicted"?
Says "arraigned" on my screen. I don't "convict", a jury does.

 

[Pogo]

Drunk teenager starts breaking windows in someone's home. Looks like a good shoot to me.

You should go house to house banging on doors. Let us know who's a 'good shot'.

she would have pissed herself if this kid was knocking on her door ....

Bet she would have handed him a joint first. Just so she could justify it.

 

[Pogo]

Gun violence was the hot issue I came to this site on. It was right after the Bob Costas commentary (about gun culture) and right before Sandy Hook. So yeah I have done a wee bit of research, and I've certainly seen this gun fetishist "blame the victim" pattern before. It's getting to be old hat.

The only people blaming the victim are you and BrainDead.

Hint: the victim is not the illegally drunk guy trying to break into an innocent man's house.

"Innocent man"? Oh, you mean the "innocent man" in jail for murder right now, that one?
Well he's certainly still alive so he can't be the "victim".

As I said --- y'all gun nuts run the same play over and over in these cases, expecting different results. Good luck wid it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

"Convicted"?
Says "arraigned" on my screen. I don't "convict", a jury does.

Nope, you nailed yourself with your own words.

"now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat."

You've already deemed him guilty. You're not really going to try and unring that bell are you?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Gun violence was the hot issue I came to this site on. It was right after the Bob Costas commentary (about gun culture) and right before Sandy Hook. So yeah I have done a wee bit of research, and I've certainly seen this gun fetishist "blame the victim" pattern before. It's getting to be old hat.

The only people blaming the victim are you and BrainDead.

Hint: the victim is not the illegally drunk guy trying to break into an innocent man's house.

"Innocent man"? Oh, you mean the "innocent man" in jail for murder right now, that one?

Oh, so innocent people never get arrested and charged? Who knew? Why have a trial at all?? If you're arrested you're fucking guilty, right?

Once again, you've convicted the man without evidence or his right to trial. Are you going to lie yet again and claim otherwise?

 

[Pogo]

"Convicted"?
Says "arraigned" on my screen. I don't "convict", a jury does.

Nope, you nailed yourself with your own words.

"now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat."

You've already deemed him guilty. You're not really going to try and unring that bell are you?

Why the frick do you think he was arrested??

Rodney Peairs (killer of Hattori) wasn't charged originally because the local law found that he perceived a justifiable threat. It's crucial.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

"Convicted"?
Says "arraigned" on my screen. I don't "convict", a jury does.

Nope, you nailed yourself with your own words.

"now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat."

You've already deemed him guilty. You're not really going to try and unring that bell are you?

Why the frick do you think he was arrested??

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

 

[Pogo]

"Convicted"?
Says "arraigned" on my screen. I don't "convict", a jury does.

Nope, you nailed yourself with your own words.

"now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat."

You've already deemed him guilty. You're not really going to try and unring that bell are you?

Why the frick do you think he was arrested??

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

"Convicted"?
Says "arraigned" on my screen. I don't "convict", a jury does.

Nope, you nailed yourself with your own words.

"now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat."

You've already deemed him guilty. You're not really going to try and unring that bell are you?

Why the frick do you think he was arrested??

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

 

[Pogo]

"Convicted"?
Says "arraigned" on my screen. I don't "convict", a jury does.

Nope, you nailed yourself with your own words.

"now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat."

You've already deemed him guilty. You're not really going to try and unring that bell are you?

Why the frick do you think he was arrested??

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. NOR, again, did I ascribe what the victim's size is, give him two extra years, or describe him as "breaking in", because I don't know any of that. The gun nut apologists did all that. A sample of the lengths some will go to in order to defend a purely emotional attachment. Just make it up.

You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

 

[TNHarley]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Nope, you nailed yourself with your own words.

"now Massachusetts: Homeowner blows away person without due perception of a threat."

You've already deemed him guilty. You're not really going to try and unring that bell are you?

Why the frick do you think he was arrested??

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

 

[Pogo]

Why the frick do you think he was arrested??

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Link or quote to what? I merely stated what another poster was saying. I don't share that opinion b/c frankly I didn't read the entire thread, only a few pages