Home invasion...thank goodness victims didn't have a gun...grandfather was beaten to death though...

[Brain357]

25 years ago his story didn't add up. His criminals had a cell phone which was a very rare sight in 1990. Not only did they have a big and rare 1990 cell phone but they walked up holding it and asked to use his phone. No need to defend his lie, I know defenses happen. Just much less than some would have you believe.

So you admit that it's possible that the Mexican could have had a cell phone. He said that the guy (singular) holding the phone was standing behind the others, a fair distance away I assume.

Cell phones in the 90's weren't all that big nor rare.

Looking back on 40 years of the cell phone - Images

Yes they were actually. Only about 5,000,000 at the time. You wouldn't just carry one around casually like now. And well he has decided to change the year rather than stand by it. So to save his lie it's now just 12 years ago.

Where did I say it was twelve years ago? Like I said,and you totally ignored,that house got struck by lightening but I couldnt tell you what year it happened.
How is that any different?

So to defend your defense lie you are now talking about lightning? Again give it up. You gave your story and I proved it wasn't true. You should come up with better lies in the future. Or well tell the truth.

If I had told you that my house was struck by lightening but I couldnt give you an exact date you wouldnt have questioned it.
The only reason you're questioning my story is you have an axe to grind.
Yes you are that obvious.

You lied and got caught. Lie better next time.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you admit that it's possible that the Mexican could have had a cell phone. He said that the guy (singular) holding the phone was standing behind the others, a fair distance away I assume.

Cell phones in the 90's weren't all that big nor rare.

Looking back on 40 years of the cell phone - Images

Yes they were actually. Only about 5,000,000 at the time. You wouldn't just carry one around casually like now. And well he has decided to change the year rather than stand by it. So to save his lie it's now just 12 years ago.

How do you know what a Mexican with a cell phone would have "casually" done? You've been repeatedly pwned on this thread. May I suggest you retreat while you still have a little dignity left.

Haha that's a good one. Sorry his timeline didn't workout. Just move the year 13 years like he said.

In which post did he change the year from 25 to 13?

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

It could hardly be before that date since I didnt live there you fucken dolt.
It might have been five years in,it might have been two I cant really say other than it's safe to say it wasnt the day we moved in because that would have been something to remember. Just as I dont remember the date of the lightening strike.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So you admit that it's possible that the Mexican could have had a cell phone. He said that the guy (singular) holding the phone was standing behind the others, a fair distance away I assume.

Cell phones in the 90's weren't all that big nor rare.

Looking back on 40 years of the cell phone - Images

Yes they were actually. Only about 5,000,000 at the time. You wouldn't just carry one around casually like now. And well he has decided to change the year rather than stand by it. So to save his lie it's now just 12 years ago.

How do you know what a Mexican with a cell phone would have "casually" done? You've been repeatedly pwned on this thread. May I suggest you retreat while you still have a little dignity left.

Haha that's a good one. Sorry his timeline didn't workout. Just move the year 13 years like he said.

In which post did he change the year from 25 to 13?

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

 

[Muhammed]

99% of the gun owners in this country can barely shoot a paper target at 30 feet. And that's a STILL paper target, not an attacker moving 30 feet in 3 seconds. I come from a family of certified sharp-shooters. So this is not just my humble opinion.

It's pure fantasy that simply owning a gun will insure your safety. The chances are great of misfiring or not getting to your gun at all and also shooting someone by accident, sort of like Dick Cheney did a few years ago when he shot his friend in the face. Remember that? No? Oh gee......

That is why Joe Biden said it's best to own a sawed-off shotgun. No pointing necessary. No skills necessary. He's not as nutty as you think.

Where is your evidence that 99% of the gun owners in this country can barely shoot a paper target at 30 feet"?

You have to do better than just spout off nonsense.

Misfiring is rare, if you come from a family of sharpshooters like you claim, though I doubt, ask them.

You're not offering up anything to offset my point, now are you?

Have you ever been to a shooting range? I have. And it's nice because for handguns you get to put the ear protectors on, lean forward, place both hands on the muzzle, place your feet apart, lean forward, balance, aim and shoot.....at a non-moving target. And even then most people never hit the bullseye because of kick-back.

Go back to your crib, child.

An intruder is a hell of a lot larger than a bullseye.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you admit that it's possible that the Mexican could have had a cell phone. He said that the guy (singular) holding the phone was standing behind the others, a fair distance away I assume.

Cell phones in the 90's weren't all that big nor rare.

Looking back on 40 years of the cell phone - Images

Yes they were actually. Only about 5,000,000 at the time. You wouldn't just carry one around casually like now. And well he has decided to change the year rather than stand by it. So to save his lie it's now just 12 years ago.

Where did I say it was twelve years ago? Like I said,and you totally ignored,that house got struck by lightening but I couldnt tell you what year it happened.
How is that any different?

So to defend your defense lie you are now talking about lightning? Again give it up. You gave your story and I proved it wasn't true. You should come up with better lies in the future. Or well tell the truth.

If I had told you that my house was struck by lightening but I couldnt give you an exact date you wouldnt have questioned it.
The only reason you're questioning my story is you have an axe to grind.
Yes you are that obvious.

You lied and got caught. Lie better next time.

Whatever douche bag.

 

[Brain357]

Yes they were actually. Only about 5,000,000 at the time. You wouldn't just carry one around casually like now. And well he has decided to change the year rather than stand by it. So to save his lie it's now just 12 years ago.

How do you know what a Mexican with a cell phone would have "casually" done? You've been repeatedly pwned on this thread. May I suggest you retreat while you still have a little dignity left.

Haha that's a good one. Sorry his timeline didn't workout. Just move the year 13 years like he said.

In which post did he change the year from 25 to 13?

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

 

[Brain357]

Yes they were actually. Only about 5,000,000 at the time. You wouldn't just carry one around casually like now. And well he has decided to change the year rather than stand by it. So to save his lie it's now just 12 years ago.

Where did I say it was twelve years ago? Like I said,and you totally ignored,that house got struck by lightening but I couldnt tell you what year it happened.
How is that any different?

So to defend your defense lie you are now talking about lightning? Again give it up. You gave your story and I proved it wasn't true. You should come up with better lies in the future. Or well tell the truth.

If I had told you that my house was struck by lightening but I couldnt give you an exact date you wouldnt have questioned it.
The only reason you're questioning my story is you have an axe to grind.
Yes you are that obvious.

You lied and got caught. Lie better next time.

Whatever douche bag.

I think the liar on a message board is the douche bag. Don't be mad at me, be mad at yourself.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How do you know what a Mexican with a cell phone would have "casually" done? You've been repeatedly pwned on this thread. May I suggest you retreat while you still have a little dignity left.

Haha that's a good one. Sorry his timeline didn't workout. Just move the year 13 years like he said.

In which post did he change the year from 25 to 13?

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

I specifically said AROUND 25 years ago. If I could have told you an exact date I would have. Knowing I had moved in to the house that year it was the only date I could be certain of. If you wanna try and make hay with that you go right ahead.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where did I say it was twelve years ago? Like I said,and you totally ignored,that house got struck by lightening but I couldnt tell you what year it happened.
How is that any different?

So to defend your defense lie you are now talking about lightning? Again give it up. You gave your story and I proved it wasn't true. You should come up with better lies in the future. Or well tell the truth.

If I had told you that my house was struck by lightening but I couldnt give you an exact date you wouldnt have questioned it.
The only reason you're questioning my story is you have an axe to grind.
Yes you are that obvious.

You lied and got caught. Lie better next time.

Whatever douche bag.

I think the liar on a message board is the douche bag. Don't be mad at me, be mad at yourself.

You seriously need to get a life.

 

[WinterBorn]

Brain357, I am guessing that you do acknowledge that there are defensive uses of firearms in the US. While the numbers estimated vary greatly, I think it is obvious that it does, in fact, happen.

What number do you accept as reasonably accurate?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank you for answering my questions. Nice try.

You taking a survey?

There are very few people who say they have had a defense. The few that claim it are very questionable.

There is nothing questionable about his defense.

Lack of accuracy on time after more than a decade is to be expected. A few fuzzy details?

That you try to spin that into a reason to dismiss this example shows how weak your case is.

12-25 years ago? Is your mind that fuzzy too? Mine isn't.

So you're telling me you can pin point with accuracy every detail of your life?
What a fucken liar.

All Brain does it lie, because that's all he can do.

 

[Brain357]

Brain357, I am guessing that you do acknowledge that there are defensive uses of firearms in the US. While the numbers estimated vary greatly, I think it is obvious that it does, in fact, happen.

What number do you accept as reasonably accurate?

I certainly do. About 50 a year are confirmed by the news. And there are about 230 justifiable homicides with a gun each year. After that it gets hard. It certainly isn't in the millions as some claim because then almost every gun owner I know would have a defense. I don't know anyone who has. I generally accept the ncvs survey of about 100,000. Which is a lot. I do however think many of these defenses are by shady characters, not the law abiding as is often given. Though many certainly are by the law abiding.

 

[Correll]

I said around 25 years ago.
This happened in our first house which we purchased right after we got married at 24 which would have been around 1990. We lived in that house for 13 years,when it actually happened in that 13 year window I couldnt tell you.
But keep trying ...it's amusing.

Yes if you are going to make up a story it should at least be believable. But at the very least you proved why surveys are so inaccurate. They always ask if it's been in the last 3-5 years. Here you can't remember if it was 12 years ago or 25. Most positive responses in the surveys are not in the actual time range. No further questions.

I dont give a rats ass about your survey. Nor do I care about your fear of firearms.
The only thing that matters is I was able to protect my wife and myself.
Thank you Remington.
And kiss my ass little boi gun grabber.

Thank you for answering my questions. Nice try. People caught in a lie are never very happy.

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

 

[Brain357]

Yes if you are going to make up a story it should at least be believable. But at the very least you proved why surveys are so inaccurate. They always ask if it's been in the last 3-5 years. Here you can't remember if it was 12 years ago or 25. Most positive responses in the surveys are not in the actual time range. No further questions.

I dont give a rats ass about your survey. Nor do I care about your fear of firearms.
The only thing that matters is I was able to protect my wife and myself.
Thank you Remington.
And kiss my ass little boi gun grabber.

Thank you for answering my questions. Nice try. People caught in a lie are never very happy.

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

 

[Correll]

I dont give a rats ass about your survey. Nor do I care about your fear of firearms.
The only thing that matters is I was able to protect my wife and myself.
Thank you Remington.
And kiss my ass little boi gun grabber.

Thank you for answering my questions. Nice try. People caught in a lie are never very happy.

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

3 Mexican looking thugs tried to get into this guys house. He scared them off with a shotgun.

Whether it was 1990 or 2002, doesn't matter.

You do know that such inaccuracies are common in eyewitness accounts taken right after an incident, don't you?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I dont give a rats ass about your survey. Nor do I care about your fear of firearms.
The only thing that matters is I was able to protect my wife and myself.
Thank you Remington.
And kiss my ass little boi gun grabber.

Thank you for answering my questions. Nice try. People caught in a lie are never very happy.

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

No..it proves I dont remember the year it happened because it was a long time ago.
And it also proves you'll ignore words in my original post to try and make points.
You said "around" qualified as plus or minus five years.(which is complete bullshit by the way) So using your "standard" that would put it around 1995 which for all I know that could be right.
So using your own logic where does that put your cell phone fairy tale?

 

[Brain357]

Thank you for answering my questions. Nice try. People caught in a lie are never very happy.

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

3 Mexican looking thugs tried to get into this guys house. He scared them off with a shotgun.

Whether it was 1990 or 2002, doesn't matter.

You do know that such inaccuracies are common in eyewitness accounts taken right after an incident, don't you?

Since they had a cell phone it does matter. He had time to think about when it happened. He should be able to do it accurately within 5 years. When I pointed out how unlikely his story was he then started changing the date to match his story. Sorry but his story is very questionable. If anything actually happened I doubt his version is very accurate. Pretty sure it's was just a poorly thought out lie.

 

[Brain357]

Thank you for answering my questions. Nice try. People caught in a lie are never very happy.

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

No..it proves I dont remember the year it happened because it was a long time ago.
And it also proves you'll ignore words in my original post to try and make points.
You said "around" qualified as plus or minus five years.(which is complete bullshit by the way) So using your "standard" that would put it around 1995 which for all I know that could be right.
So using your own logic where does that put your cell phone fairy tale?

Still very unlikely. I do like how it's 1990 or more recent, but not older. Glad you are clear on that. Older would only make your story more ridiculous.

And who believes a 1982 cutlass made it to 1995?

 

[Correll]

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

3 Mexican looking thugs tried to get into this guys house. He scared them off with a shotgun.

Whether it was 1990 or 2002, doesn't matter.

You do know that such inaccuracies are common in eyewitness accounts taken right after an incident, don't you?

Since they had a cell phone it does matter. He had time to think about when it happened. He should be able to do it accurately within 5 years. When I pointed out how unlikely his story was he then started changing the date to match his story. Sorry but his story is very questionable. If anything actually happened I doubt his version is very accurate. Pretty sure it's was just a poorly thought out lie.

"He had time to think about it when it happened"? What does that mean?

It takes less than a second to notice a detail like that.

How does that indicate that he should be able to recall the date within five years, 25 to 12 years later?

Trying to inflate that into evidence of a lie is what is "very questionable".

You have a vested interest in coming to the "conclusion" that his story is a lie, for that lets you dismiss his point and use it to bolster your own.

But you probably never consider your own human foibles do you? That's something you save to use when it serves your agenda.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

3 Mexican looking thugs tried to get into this guys house. He scared them off with a shotgun.

Whether it was 1990 or 2002, doesn't matter.

You do know that such inaccuracies are common in eyewitness accounts taken right after an incident, don't you?

Since they had a cell phone it does matter. He had time to think about when it happened. He should be able to do it accurately within 5 years. When I pointed out how unlikely his story was he then started changing the date to match his story. Sorry but his story is very questionable. If anything actually happened I doubt his version is very accurate. Pretty sure it's was just a poorly thought out lie.

As I've told you..there are several threads where I've told this story,and your dumbass wasn't even around back then so dont make yourself out to be special jr.
Because you're far from it..unless you're talking short bus special.