Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. The simple fact is that the homeowner did not give permission for anyone to be in his home. The assumption is at that point that anyone entering his home is a criminal and therefore a threat.
I am a firm believer in the castle doctrine and as such I will always side with a homeowner defending his family within his own home.
Once again you completely fail to address the question and deflect off somewhere irrelevant. Seems to be a pattern. Some "pilot"...
I answered thew question asked in the post to which I responded.
you would think Pogo would be tuckered out with how many times he moved the goal post.
Uh-oh, Pogo, I think they're on to you, man...you would think Pogo would be tuckered out with how many times he moved the goal post.
Okay. Forgot how it was worded. But the point is, how one uses language. The reporter used terms that were not precise, not legally precise either. 'Broke into,' is not what legally happened as there was no 'breaking.' He just walked through an open door. It's like when they say 'allegedly' shot. He did literally shoot the boy. But they say 'allegedly' because he has not been tried and convicted.
Was the teen in the man's garage? Fairly simple question. If he was, then he shouldn't have been. And you know for sure the door wasn't locked?
We do indeed, because the homeowner AND his GF both stated on the record that that was exactly how they left it, exactly for that purpose, dumbass.
Just curious there. If I leave a door open doesn't mean someone on the street can just walk in. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that anymore.
You've moving your own goalposts. You came in with guns blazing about "broke in". You were wrong, and now you're flailing around for something else. Yawn...
See those who have broken in and walked in uninvited in the past has changed all of that. Shame. When the have nots want someone elses, then they feel they just deserve to take it. Double shame. It's unfortunate what happened, why not let it play out in the courts and get all of the relevant information?
That's exactly why I put all the relevant information in, he said to the wall for the 521st time, post 202. And it is going to play out in court; that's the whole point of a criminal charge, isn't it? Why, some of us are even laying bets on the outcome, some even purport to read not only the mind of a dead kid but the minds of Montanans. We shall see, shan't we?
Like I said, you people love to kill: the idea of blowing someone away with your precious guns is a wet dream for you all. It's Kaarma. I think he's going to have some kharma to deal with now.
Seriously you have some kind of mental defect.
So... respect for human life is a "mental defect" now?
Are you stupid?
Seriously you have some kind of mental defect.
So... respect for human life is a "mental defect" now?
Are you stupid?
No you fucking troll. Saying everyone who kills someone loves it and has wet dreams is stupid.
Uh-oh, Pogo, I think they're on to you, man...you would think Pogo would be tuckered out with how many times he moved the goal post.
look at every post Pogo has made and watch the twists and turns.... every time he is shown wrong or caught in a lie he move the post... The man is a scumbag liar.
look at every post Pogo has made and watch the twists and turns.... every time he is shown wrong or caught in a lie he move the post... The man is a scumbag liar.
mmm......hmm. Such as .....where?
"he move the post"?
Who move post? No speak ingleezi at convenience storr? How much Cheetos?
look at every post Pogo has made and watch the twists and turns.... every time he is shown wrong or caught in a lie he move the post... The man is a scumbag liar.
mmm......hmm. Such as .....where?
"he move the post"?
Who move post? No speak ingleezi at convenience storr? How much Cheetos?
Read the thread. .. rinse and repeat
tapatalk post
mmm......hmm. Such as .....where?
"he move the post"?
Who move post? No speak ingleezi at convenience storr? How much Cheetos?
Read the thread. .. rinse and repeat
tapatalk post
How the fuck do you think I was able to post in the thread if I didn't read it??
So -- you have nothing.
Next.
Seriously you have some kind of mental defect.
So... respect for human life is a "mental defect" now?
Are you stupid?
No you fucking troll. Saying everyone who kills someone loves it and has wet dreams is stupid.
Certainly, the Zimmerman case has already proven you wrong on all counts. Threatening people lives or property is not what ordinary teenage kids do. Ordinary teenagers may smoke a bit of weed and drink, but they are not thugs, at least in my circles.So... respect for human life is a "mental defect" now?
Are you stupid?
No you fucking troll. Saying everyone who kills someone loves it and has wet dreams is stupid.
It is hyperbole and a metaphor, stupid. It applies to not everyone, only those who qualify as people who cling tenaciously to their guns, who interpret the 2nd Amendment literally, who express pleasure and joy in this thread, and elsewhere, about the death of someone who was not a threat to anyone and who was blown away. It applies to people who call ordinary kids thugs and 'bad' guys and deserving of death because they are doing what ordinary teenage kids do. It applies to those who show no value for human life but every value for their right to have one or more guns in their possession.
The term "wet dream" is what we adults call a "metaphor".
Yeah, you're stupid. "Yes" would have taken less time.
Dept. of Curiouser and Curiouser, a/k/a News of the Weird:
>> The Missoula law firm that is representing a Grant Creek resident accused of murdering a German exchange student will host a live showing of the U.S.-Germany World Cup soccer match on big-screen televisions in Caras Park on Thursday.
Paul Ryan & Associates sent an announcement to the media Tuesday, saying it will host the free live showing at 10 a.m. Thursday. The game will be shown on two 65-inch televisions.
... In a phone interview, Ryan said the soccer games live showing has nothing to do with his firms involvement in Kaarmas defense. (Ryan contends that his client was acting in defense of his family when he fired three shots at 17-year-old Diren Dede.)
Ryan said the fact that Germany is playing the U.S. is purely a coincidence.
Honestly, that didnt cross my mind, Ryan said. We were just excited about the game and we wanted to provide this to the community. I hope it doesnt turn into something negative. Its just a weird timing of the two teams that match up. It doesnt have anything to do with our case. Hopefully, people can forget about those things and watch a soccer game. We just did it as a community event. <<
"Who, me?"
>> Judge McLean also told Kaarma's attorney Paul Ryan to not host a public viewing of the USA-Germany World Cup match in Caras Park as Ryan had planned on doing.-- Tentative Trial Date Set
McLean said this was not a time to run "a public relations campaign" and Ryan should "knock it off." <<
>> Attorney Paul Ryan responded by canceling plans to host a free community screening of Thursdays U.S.-Germany soccer match, insisting he never made the connection between slain student Diren Dedes nationality and love for soccer, and the U.S.-Germany matchup in the World Cup.-- Missoulian
District Judge Ed McLean made the connection quickly during Wednesday mornings omnibus hearing.
In this mornings Missoulian, theres an article about the televised soccer event, McLean said. I dont want any playing to the public when we have serious business at hand, and its not the time to run a public relations campaign. So knock it off.
Ryans client, Markus Kaarma, is charged with deliberate homicide for fatally shooting the unarmed teenager in his Grant Creek garage on April 27. Dede was an all-state soccer player and Big Sky High School student; he also played soccer in his home country [Germany]. <<
Once again you completely fail to address the question and deflect off somewhere irrelevant. Seems to be a pattern. Some "pilot"...
I answered thew question asked in the post to which I responded.
Well no you didn't. The question was about the advisability of spraying buckshot willy-nilly into the dark and establishing whether a potential threat really is one. You came back with ruminations on castle doctrines. As I said -- evasive.
-- Or does your answer mean you will always side with irresponsible use of firearms?
