Black lives matter

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
It's not about Goldteam's comfort level. It's about the law. Are you comfortable convicting McMichael even though he didn't break a law? Is that the society you want to live in, where you can go to prison for life due to public pressure, despite not having broken the law?
Yes, they are comfortable.

They already admit the McMichaels weren't trying to shoot them.

He charges from a distance, the gun goes off, and he falls over.

So they should receive prison time for not being the cause of someone being shot.

Typical liberal thinking here.

They were holding guns is the reason they would go to prison. Nothing more, and nothing less.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
Even if this is true, which I highly doubt, that doesn't prove that AA laws are the cause.

You haven't heard the phrase "correlation is not causation" ?
You are questioning if that is true?

Pure Sunday entertainment!
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Yes, they are comfortable.

They already admit they weren't trying to shoot them.

He charges from a distance, the gun goes off, and he falls over.

So they should receive prison time for not being the cause of someone being shot.

Typical liberal thinking here.
Of course, that isn't what happened in this case, in the slightest.

But I won't be surprised when you pretend to be shocked when these guys are convicted.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
Of course, that isn't what happened in this case, in the slightest.

But I won't be surprised when you pretend to be shocked when these guys are convicted.
They'll be convicted so cities don't burn.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
They'll be rightly convicted for manslaughter.
If they charge the police and the gun goes off, the police would be guilty, too.

Again, pure Sunday entertainment on a rainy day.

Thanks, everyone!
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
If they charge the police and the gun goes off, the police would be guilty, too.

Again, pure Sunday entertainment on a rainy day.

Thanks, everyone!
He wouldn't have charged the police. You made that up.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,173
Reaction score
820
Points
113
If they charge the police and the gun goes off, the police would be guilty, too.

Again, pure Sunday entertainment on a rainy day.

Thanks, everyone!
No. Police on active duty are trained and supposed to be out doing these sorts of things. Not vigilantes.

Involuntary manslaughter will be the charge.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Other people: feel free to speak up.

Unless you genuinely just enjoy me boxing GoldTeam up??
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
No. Police on active duty are trained and supposed to be out doing these sorts of things. Not vigilantes.

Involuntary manslaughter will be the charge.
So the police corner him, have guns, he charges them, gets shot......and this would be a non-story!

It would be 10 times worse. The police would be racist for the shooting of a UNARMED black jogger.

Pure Sunday entertainment!
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
So the police corner him, have guns, he charges them, gets shot......and this would be a non-story!

It would be 10 times worse. The police would be racist for the shooting of a black jogger.

Pure Sunday entertainment!
Keep making up something that would've never happened!
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Is that like making up that they couldn't/shouldn't carry guns?
Never said couldn't/shouldn't. You agreed the law does not say they must !

Thus, the law doesn't excuse them for bringing the guns!
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
Never said couldn't/shouldn't. You agreed the law does not say they must !

Thus, the law doesn't excuse them for bringing the guns!
They did not break the law by bringing guns. You are all about the law. Again, they did not break the law by bringing guns. The reason they didn't break the law, is bringing guns is not against the law.

You see how they didn't break the law?

I tried to say it several times for you.

Are we going to go with the law, or what you think should be the law? Oh shit, I asked a question. What the hell was I thinking?

You want them convicted for something that is not against the law.

Pure Sunday entertainment.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
They did not break the law by bringing guns. You are all about the law. Again, they did not break the law by bringing guns. The reason they didn't break the law, is bringing guns is not against the law.

You see how they didn't break the law?

I tried to say it several times for you.

Are we going to go with the law, or what you think should be the law.?
You agree they voluntarily chose to bring guns. That point is conceded to me.

I never said they aren't allowed to bring guns. Strawman
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
The real question is: why did they brandish the guns from the start? That provoked the attack.

They could've kept them down on the seat in the truck, and calmly approached him saying "hey man, we just want to talk to you about the house?"

Guns just would've been for backup. There, in case. But not out in the open from the start.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
You agree they voluntarily chose to bring guns. That point is conceded to me.

I never said they aren't allowed to bring guns. Strawman
Yes, they voluntarily brought guns, which is lawful.

Thanks, bud!
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
The real question is: why did they brandish the guns from the start? That provoked the attack.

They could've kept them down on the seat in the truck, and calmly approached him saying "hey man, we just want to talk to you about the house?"

Guns just would've been for backup. There, in case. But not out in the open from the start.
How do you know they didn't?

You make a lot of assumptions.
 
Top Bottom