Where did this guy get the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom stall?

[whitehall]

The guy was probably a drunk or drugged out schizophrenic who had no idea he was blundering into a situation. You can't fault the father who was protecting his daughter. Phoenix is full of degenerates on every street corner.

I don't think he was "blundering" anywhere. When the news article says, "This is the victim" and puts up his mug shot, I feel safe in saying he was a predator who was actually, deliberately trying to hurt the girl.

I'm not defending the guy but he just panhandled money from the father. If he was a "predator" he wasn't very good at it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I have never been in a QT that did not have the bathrooms clearly marked. And if I remember correctly, THAT particular QT has its restrooms on opposite sides of the store from each other.

And that may indeed be the case here, and you're in a position to find out. But the OP isn't, had zero information leading to his obsessions, and ran with it anyway, so my commentary is about his (the OP's) motivations in desperately trying to make this some kind of "tranny" story.

I never tried to make it a tranny story, simply asking what would make a man believe he has the right to use a restroom of females and even go into one of their stalls? He had to get that idea from somewhere, don't you think?

In your entire article --- and the link it came from --- there is no indication a "restroom of females" (what a quaint term) was involved. YOU made that part up.

And yes, I vetted your link, because I've come to learn it's necessary.

Doesn't matter if it's in the article. That QT has a restroom with a big sign marked "Women" and an appropriate stick figure, and a restroom marked "Men" with the appropriate stick figure.

So yeah, it was indicated.

Not in the article it isn't.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

First, prove to me that any of us are obligated to go with just what's in that article. Ray didn't say "according to the article, it was a clearly marked women's restroom". He just said "it was a restroom for females". Which it was.

Sorry it bothers you that there's a person present who has actually SEEN the QT where it happened, and can verify the facts, but life occasionally sucks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

This comment says more about you, especially with your avatar, than anything else you might seek to offer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

 

[Doc1]

Where is the evidence that he is a pervert? How do you know he was attempting - and it seems failed - to enter a stall, not to molest, but to shit? What was his blood alcohol, or what drugs were in his system?

Your comment, " he rightfully should have done" ( killed a human being), hold a callous disregard for human life. You disgust me.

LOL, if you have evidence that article is false present it or stfu. A source has been provided and your support for a pedo has been duly noted. You disgust me.

LOL, you have evidence that the man went in there at all?


Hell no but that doesn't hold you back from tying a noose, does it Sparkles.

The moral is DON'T go into the Women's Restroom with my daughter.

Actually the "moral" is you ass-sumed 'facts' that are not in evidence.

He was in the girls room and the GIRLS said he tried to get into her stall.

I put it to you AGAIN --- where in the article does it say anything about "girls in a girls' room"?

Since the question stumps you I'll give you the answer. It doesn't.

What stumps ME about the question is why you think you get to impose an arbitrary parameter of "in the article" on people.

Amazingly enough, we are all not only capable of acquiring facts from places other than the initial article, we are also ALLOWED to do so, even if you don't like it.

You have to factor in Pogo's ego, he/she needs to act like he/she the smartest kid in the room. Often as not (like here) he/she comes off looking stupid and arguing shit that only he/she thinks is relevant. I've had the same experience with him/her on other boards.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's my experience too, and it also doesn't necessarily designate male and female restrooms as the OP here weasel-wordedly tried to suggest.

There's no indication that a male walked into a 'ladies' room' designated as such even in the originating KNXV-TV story.

Obviously the OP is using a dead body to sell his crackpot agenda obsession. Which is typical for him.
I guess RayRay's taking over the tranny obsession from NovaSteve.

Okay, I have never been in a QT that did not have the bathrooms clearly marked. And if I remember correctly, THAT particular QT has its restrooms on opposite sides of the store from each other.

And that may indeed be the case here, and you're in a position to find out. But the OP isn't, had zero information leading to his obsessions, and ran with it anyway, so my commentary is about his (the OP's) motivations in desperately trying to make this some kind of "tranny" story.

I never tried to make it a tranny story, simply asking what would make a man believe he has the right to use a restroom of females and even go into one of their stalls? He had to get that idea from somewhere, don't you think?

In your entire article --- and the link it came from --- there is no indication a "restroom of females" (what a quaint term) was involved. YOU made that part up.

And yes, I vetted your link, because I've come to learn it's necessary.

Correct, I am making assumptions, but Cecilie1200 is testifying that my assumption was absolutely correct. At least here, the only male/ female restrooms are those with facilities to only accommodate one person and both sexes have to share. In that case, the door has a lock that prevents people from coming in while you're using it.

All QTs have one of two floor plans. This particular one has the bathrooms on opposite ends of the building, next to side doors leading to the parking lot. All QTs also have large signs next to the bathroom door, indicating which sex that bathroom is for and that there is a handicapped stall available in that bathroom (pretty sure most of us have seen that sign dozens of times before).

The doors to the non-handicapped stalls open inward, and do not have handles on the outside. And they're fairly sturdy, and kept in good repair. The only way you're rattling that door at all is if you're gripping the upper edge of it in your hand and deliberately shaking it. There is absolutely no innocent reason for anyone to do that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The guy was probably a drunk or drugged out schizophrenic who had no idea he was blundering into a situation. You can't fault the father who was protecting his daughter. Phoenix is full of degenerates on every street corner.

I don't think he was "blundering" anywhere. When the news article says, "This is the victim" and puts up his mug shot, I feel safe in saying he was a predator who was actually, deliberately trying to hurt the girl.

I'm not defending the guy but he just panhandled money from the father. If he was a "predator" he wasn't very good at it.

I didn't say he was a master criminal. Sounds like a bottom-feeding opportunist. And it's entirely possible he didn't even realize the girl in the stall was with the guy he had just panhandled. I'd need more story details. He could have gone inside, spotted the girl going into the bathroom, and decided on the spur of the moment to follow her and do whatever he could get away with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

 

[Pogo]

And that may indeed be the case here, and you're in a position to find out. But the OP isn't, had zero information leading to his obsessions, and ran with it anyway, so my commentary is about his (the OP's) motivations in desperately trying to make this some kind of "tranny" story.

I never tried to make it a tranny story, simply asking what would make a man believe he has the right to use a restroom of females and even go into one of their stalls? He had to get that idea from somewhere, don't you think?

In your entire article --- and the link it came from --- there is no indication a "restroom of females" (what a quaint term) was involved. YOU made that part up.

And yes, I vetted your link, because I've come to learn it's necessary.

Doesn't matter if it's in the article. That QT has a restroom with a big sign marked "Women" and an appropriate stick figure, and a restroom marked "Men" with the appropriate stick figure.

So yeah, it was indicated.

Not in the article it isn't.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You are quite the sick puppy, do you generally go into Women's Restrooms too?

Go forth and fuck yourself, Fraud. I challenged you and you FAILED.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

Whatever he's convicted of or sentenced to, one has to ask if he would be convicted of something more serious or gotten more time if this guy was wearing a dress claiming gender identity problems.

 

[Pogo]

Where is the evidence that he is a pervert? How do you know he was attempting - and it seems failed - to enter a stall, not to molest, but to shit? What was his blood alcohol, or what drugs were in his system?

Your comment, " he rightfully should have done" ( killed a human being), hold a callous disregard for human life. You disgust me.

LOL, if you have evidence that article is false present it or stfu. A source has been provided and your support for a pedo has been duly noted. You disgust me.

LOL, you have evidence that the man went in there at all?


Hell no but that doesn't hold you back from tying a noose, does it Sparkles.

The moral is DON'T go into the Women's Restroom with my daughter.

Actually the "moral" is you ass-sumed 'facts' that are not in evidence.

He was in the girls room and the GIRLS said he tried to get into her stall.

I put it to you AGAIN --- where in the article does it say anything about "girls in a girls' room"?

Since the question stumps you I'll give you the answer. It doesn't.

What stumps ME about the question is why you think you get to impose an arbitrary parameter of "in the article" on people.

Amazingly enough, we are all not only capable of acquiring facts from places other than the initial article, we are also ALLOWED to do so, even if you don't like it.

Lotta whining to get out of the obvious here. I just busted two people for assuming facts not in evidence. One of them just confessed. And here you are trying to tell the thread that doesn't matter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

Whatever he's convicted of or sentenced to, one has to ask if he would be convicted of something more serious or gotten more time if this guy was wearing a dress claiming gender identity problems.

Given that this is Arizona, it would depend largely on the judge and who was on the jury.

But it's a sure bet the leftists around here would be making excuses for him.

 

[Pogo]

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

Whatever he's convicted of or sentenced to, one has to ask if he would be convicted of something more serious or gotten more time if this guy was wearing a dress claiming gender identity problems.

NO, one does NOT. *YOU* apparently have to do that because you're hung up on this tranny thing, but normal people don't have to inject a lot of bullshit that isn't there just so they have something to whine about.

I even answered your original question when I got here, albeit stating the obvious, and you even whined about that.

 

[Doc1]

I never tried to make it a tranny story, simply asking what would make a man believe he has the right to use a restroom of females and even go into one of their stalls? He had to get that idea from somewhere, don't you think?

In your entire article --- and the link it came from --- there is no indication a "restroom of females" (what a quaint term) was involved. YOU made that part up.

And yes, I vetted your link, because I've come to learn it's necessary.

Doesn't matter if it's in the article. That QT has a restroom with a big sign marked "Women" and an appropriate stick figure, and a restroom marked "Men" with the appropriate stick figure.

So yeah, it was indicated.

Not in the article it isn't.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You are quite the sick puppy, do you generally go into Women's Restrooms too?

Go forth and fuck yourself, Fraud. I challenged you and you FAILED.

No, you just look stupid. Your "argument" is "maybe" the Girls went into the men's room, or maybe there was only ONE restroom. You look stupid, butch up sally. Your position needs to assume all kinds of things....and all in the name of defending the predator.

 

[Pogo]

In your entire article --- and the link it came from --- there is no indication a "restroom of females" (what a quaint term) was involved. YOU made that part up.

And yes, I vetted your link, because I've come to learn it's necessary.

Doesn't matter if it's in the article. That QT has a restroom with a big sign marked "Women" and an appropriate stick figure, and a restroom marked "Men" with the appropriate stick figure.

So yeah, it was indicated.

Not in the article it isn't.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You are quite the sick puppy, do you generally go into Women's Restrooms too?

Go forth and fuck yourself, Fraud. I challenged you and you FAILED.

No, you just look stupid. Your "argument" is "maybe" the Girls went into the men's room, or maybe there was only ONE restroom. You look stupid, butch up sally. Your position needs to assume all kinds of things....and all in the name of defending the predator.

Again, re-fuck yourself. *YOU* did the ass-suming here Bingo. You and the OP. I simply pointed out that you both did that, and y'all don't have the cojones to man up to it.

Moreover I never transmogrified "girl" into "girls" --- again YOU did that and can't explain it --- NOR did I say, imply or indicate that these mythological Girls "went into a men's room". You pulled that out of your ass too.

As I said -- you're a fraud.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

Whatever he's convicted of or sentenced to, one has to ask if he would be convicted of something more serious or gotten more time if this guy was wearing a dress claiming gender identity problems.

NO, one does NOT. *YOU* apparently have to do that because you're hung up on this tranny thing, but normal people don't have to inject a lot of bullshit that isn't there just so they have something to whine about.

I even answered your original question when I got here, albeit stating the obvious, and you even whined about that.

Yes, because this tranny thing was started by the left. It was promoted by the left.

 

[Doc1]

Doesn't matter if it's in the article. That QT has a restroom with a big sign marked "Women" and an appropriate stick figure, and a restroom marked "Men" with the appropriate stick figure.

So yeah, it was indicated.

Not in the article it isn't.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You are quite the sick puppy, do you generally go into Women's Restrooms too?

Go forth and fuck yourself, Fraud. I challenged you and you FAILED.

No, you just look stupid. Your "argument" is "maybe" the Girls went into the men's room, or maybe there was only ONE restroom. You look stupid, butch up sally. Your position needs to assume all kinds of things....and all in the name of defending the predator.

Again, re-fuck yourself. *YOU* did the ass-suming here Bingo. You and the OP. I simply pointed out that you both did that, and y'all don't have the cojones to man up to it.

Nope you're "assuming" stupid shit to try and look smart, it didn't work. You look stupid. Do you make a habit of defending people who prey on Children?

 

[kaz]

PHOENIX – Police say a man who tried to enter a teenage girl’s bathroom stall was confronted and killed by the girl’s father, KNXV reports.

According to Phoenix police, around 11:30 p.m. on August 2, 40-year-old Melvin Harris went to the QuikTrip near Dunlap and 19th avenues to pick up his teenage daughter and her friends.

A man, who would later become the victim, approached Harris’ car in the parking lot and asked for money. Harris gave him some money, and the man went into the QT.

Harris was later informed that a man tried to enter the bathroom stall his daughter was using. The teen told an employee, who in turn alerted an on-duty security guard.

Man who followed teen into restroom is beaten to death by girl’s father, police say

If you don't read the story, the ending is not very good. The father met the guy outside and beat him severely eventually causing his death. Now the protective father is facing second degree murder charges.

So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Whelp --- his President walks into teenage girls' dressing rooms and brags about it, so there's a clue.

Is that you don't know the difference between adults and children seriously what you want to go with?

 

[kaz]

Whelp --- his President walks into teenage girls' dressing rooms and brags about it, so there's a clue.

Right, which leads us to the moral of the story: don't pull that shit unless you are rich and famous.

Thank you, President Pussy, for all of your wonderful lessons.

I'd say the moral of the story is don't do that if they are minors