HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » UPDATE 2: Texas E-Z-Trip ...

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:41 PM

UPDATE 2: Texas E-Z-Trip (C-store) Shooting of Violent Drunk

http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-north-dallas-store-shooting-leaves-man-dead-20120705,0,3423937.story

There is a bit more information on that shooting. I will cut-n-paste the relevant parts.


SNIP

Police say the unidentified black male slapped a customer in the face that customer ran out of the store and the man chased after him. They say he then went back into the store and hit a second customer with his fist. This fight also spilled outside, but ended in gunfire.

SNIP

The store owner says after the first shot things went back inside his store.

"He was still arguing with the white guy and he was coming close to him again and that's when he shot again and that's when the black guy started bleeding a lot and that's when he fell on the ground,” said Saddiq.

SNIP

The store owner says he's already reviewed his surveillance video and he says it shows more than one shot fired. Police say they are still interviewing witnesses and piecing this all together. As of now they don't believe the two men knew each other.


So the drunk didn't stop chasing the guy, even after he was shot the first time, but kept on coming after the victim.

157 replies, 13189 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 157 replies Author Time Post
Reply UPDATE 2: Texas E-Z-Trip (C-store) Shooting of Violent Drunk (Original post)
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 OP
Meiko Jul 2012 #1
Tejas Jul 2012 #60
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #2
permatex Jul 2012 #3
PavePusher Jul 2012 #90
permatex Jul 2012 #95
Hoyt Jul 2012 #4
permatex Jul 2012 #5
Hoyt Jul 2012 #6
gejohnston Jul 2012 #8
Clames Jul 2012 #11
spin Jul 2012 #61
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #97
era veteran Jul 2012 #112
PavePusher Jul 2012 #120
era veteran Jul 2012 #129
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #96
PavePusher Jul 2012 #101
Common Sense Party Jul 2012 #141
Tejas Jul 2012 #155
gejohnston Jul 2012 #7
Hoyt Jul 2012 #9
gejohnston Jul 2012 #10
Hoyt Jul 2012 #13
permatex Jul 2012 #14
Hoyt Jul 2012 #17
permatex Jul 2012 #19
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #21
Hoyt Jul 2012 #27
permatex Jul 2012 #28
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #51
Hoyt Jul 2012 #132
permatex Jul 2012 #133
PavePusher Jul 2012 #135
Tejas Jul 2012 #130
gejohnston Jul 2012 #16
Hoyt Jul 2012 #29
permatex Jul 2012 #31
PavePusher Jul 2012 #92
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #127
Tejas Jul 2012 #102
permatex Jul 2012 #12
Hoyt Jul 2012 #15
permatex Jul 2012 #18
gejohnston Jul 2012 #20
Hoyt Jul 2012 #22
permatex Jul 2012 #24
Hoyt Jul 2012 #30
permatex Jul 2012 #35
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #44
Hoyt Jul 2012 #63
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #66
permatex Jul 2012 #71
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #87
gejohnston Jul 2012 #32
Hoyt Jul 2012 #38
gejohnston Jul 2012 #40
Hoyt Jul 2012 #45
permatex Jul 2012 #43
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #62
Hoyt Jul 2012 #64
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #67
Hoyt Jul 2012 #69
permatex Jul 2012 #77
Hoyt Jul 2012 #79
permatex Jul 2012 #81
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #104
permatex Jul 2012 #72
Hoyt Jul 2012 #75
permatex Jul 2012 #76
Hoyt Jul 2012 #106
HALO141 Jul 2012 #108
Hoyt Jul 2012 #109
HALO141 Jul 2012 #110
Hoyt Jul 2012 #111
HALO141 Jul 2012 #114
Hoyt Jul 2012 #115
HALO141 Jul 2012 #117
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #118
PavePusher Jul 2012 #119
Hoyt Jul 2012 #121
PavePusher Jul 2012 #122
Hoyt Jul 2012 #123
PavePusher Jul 2012 #124
Hoyt Jul 2012 #125
PavePusher Jul 2012 #126
sarisataka Jul 2012 #116
HALO141 Jul 2012 #134
era veteran Jul 2012 #113
Common Sense Party Jul 2012 #142
permatex Jul 2012 #23
gejohnston Jul 2012 #25
permatex Jul 2012 #26
gejohnston Jul 2012 #36
Hoyt Jul 2012 #46
gejohnston Jul 2012 #49
HALO141 Jul 2012 #89
Hoyt Jul 2012 #34
permatex Jul 2012 #37
Hoyt Jul 2012 #39
gejohnston Jul 2012 #41
Hoyt Jul 2012 #47
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #52
Hoyt Jul 2012 #65
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #68
Hoyt Jul 2012 #70
permatex Jul 2012 #74
Hoyt Jul 2012 #78
permatex Jul 2012 #82
Hoyt Jul 2012 #84
permatex Jul 2012 #86
sarisataka Jul 2012 #105
Tejas Jul 2012 #146
HALO141 Jul 2012 #94
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #98
Hoyt Jul 2012 #107
Tejas Jul 2012 #57
Hoyt Jul 2012 #73
permatex Jul 2012 #80
Hoyt Jul 2012 #83
permatex Jul 2012 #85
Tejas Jul 2012 #100
Tejas Jul 2012 #99
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #128
permatex Jul 2012 #131
Tejas Jul 2012 #136
gejohnston Jul 2012 #137
Tejas Jul 2012 #140
Hoyt Jul 2012 #143
Tejas Jul 2012 #144
Hoyt Jul 2012 #148
gejohnston Jul 2012 #149
Hoyt Jul 2012 #151
Tejas Jul 2012 #150
Hoyt Jul 2012 #138
Tejas Jul 2012 #139
gejohnston Jul 2012 #145
Hoyt Jul 2012 #152
sarisataka Jul 2012 #153
Hoyt Jul 2012 #156
gejohnston Jul 2012 #157
gejohnston Jul 2012 #154
permatex Jul 2012 #42
Tejas Jul 2012 #56
PavePusher Jul 2012 #93
Tejas Jul 2012 #59
Tejas Jul 2012 #55
PavePusher Jul 2012 #91
Tejas Jul 2012 #53
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #88
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2012 #33
Meiko Jul 2012 #48
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2012 #50
Meiko Jul 2012 #58
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #54
Tejas Jul 2012 #103
Marinedem Jul 2012 #147

Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:48 PM

1. You would think

 

that being shot would make you stop your attack, I guess not. Like I said, the attacker made some bad choices and he paid for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:15 AM

60. Not drunk, probably PCP or Meth.

 

Surrounding area is full of Wet, Meth, etc. Doubt the dead dumbass was drunk, more than likely sprinkled some embalming fluid on a joint and fired it up, then decided to maybe go and eat someone's face so he could be on the evening news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:49 PM

2. Sounds like evolution at work to me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:50 PM

3. You and I and any sane person

 

know that this won't make a damn bit of difference to our resident anti's here, as far as they are concerned, the shooter was judge, jury, and executioner, no matter what the facts are.
Just the fact that he was carrying a gun, legally I might add, makes him guilty of..............fuck, I don't know, but they'll come up with something.
In 3-2-1.............................................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:59 AM

90. Well done. But next time, try something harder and more useful....

 

....like the Lotto numbers. Predicting pro-restrictionists is just about the very definition of "setting the bar low".

(All in good fun, just in case that wasn't apparent...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #90)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:27 PM

95. I promise I'll try harder next time.

 

BTW, it was apparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:51 PM

4. Am I understanding a white guy shot a black guy. Guess that means no charges, and

Texas, gun stores will be full of white guys arming up. Typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:55 PM

5. Real classy Hoyt

 

Playing the race card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:58 PM

6. Guns and racism are closely linked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:07 PM

8. pop psy 101?

I bet you saw that on one of those day time chat shows that interview cat mediums.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:15 PM

11. And yet you still own guns.

 

Telling, very telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:36 AM

61. It is also true that gun control and racism are even more closely linked. ...

Gun control

***snip***

Gun control in the United States

Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting Black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most states turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns in order to price destitute individuals out of the gun market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Gun_control_in_the_United_States


Sullivan Act

The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.

***snip***

Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile

Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:51 PM

97. Precisely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #97)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:43 PM

112. nice '03

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to era veteran (Reply #112)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 06:50 PM

120. Huh?

 

I think it's a 91/30 Mosin Nagant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #120)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 05:38 AM

129. Looked too quickly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:48 PM

96. That effusion of idiocy really deserves no reply...

...but you're getting one anyway: take your vacuous amateur psychoanalysis and stick it where the sun don't shine. You haven't a clue about how behavioral traits are actually linked, psychologically, do you? No....you're just a profoundly bigoted ignoramus with an axe to grind, mouthing off about something he knows fuck-all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:10 PM

101. Yes. Guns have often been used to combat racism.

 

I see no problem with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 11:32 AM

141. My gun is not racist in the least.

Silly TaliBanners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:38 PM

155. Racist thugs that assault customers get shot?

 

You finally got something right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:01 PM

7. Maybe the black guy was the racist

If someone is pounding my face in, I'm not going to stop to think about superficial physical features. You think Texas is racist? Go to LA. Go to New Jersey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:07 PM

9. I think we know who racist is - guy who shot unarmed man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:10 PM

10. fists are lethal weapons

you know that. Over 600 people are murdered each year with bare hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:51 PM

13. I feel for those who can't handle UNARMED drunk, when they gotta a gun.

Just because it's so damn easy to shoot someone - when one has obsessively trained to do so and, with premeditation, strapped on a gun- doesn't mean you can't use your head to end a confrontation.

That's the problem with carrying, too many are so lazy and/or immoral, they shoot long before it's really the only option. Throw in racial impact, and there ya go. Makes Tbaggers tingle though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:57 PM

14. And I'm sure you'll be showing us the proof that he was a racist looking to shoot a black man,

 

right? You made the accusation, now put your money where your mouth is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:03 PM

17. Have you got proof otherwise. Facts speak for themselves.

We are not talking "reasonable doubt" because this not court. "Likely" in this case is proof enough for me.

If they had video of him shooting him in back, you'd still be dreaming up reasons why it was a good shoot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:07 PM

19. Ahhhhhhhhh, I see you're usual deflect

 

Here's how it works
You make a statement as a "fact"
You provide proof of said "fact"
That's how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:12 PM

21. "Guns and racism are closely linked." <--------- You mean "facts" like that? The kind that can't be

proven?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #21)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:22 PM

27. Proven to your gun tainted view of society? Impossible.

If the shooter said, "my dad - Archer Bunker - would be proud, " you'd still find a way to rationalize this shooting.
If proof were irrefutable, you'd just say that with millions of folks toting, bad shoots are bound to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:24 PM

28. So, again,

 

no proof. You really are bad at this, ya know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:07 AM

51. All well and good, except that's not the way it went down, is it?

Are you seeing how this works yet?

Make claim.
Prove claim.

Proof that is not in evidence cannot be irrefutable.

Do you get that?

Oh, and with millions of folks driving, bad left turns are bound to happen.

That's a FACT, Jack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #51)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 10:34 AM

132. But, we need to drive -- we don't need to shoot fellow citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #132)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 10:49 AM

133. Driving has nothing to do with it

 

He's saying when you make a claim, prove it with links or quotes.
Why do you refuse to do so?
You've claimed that I support the RW'ers that are going after AG Holder, I've asked you several times to provide the links to where I supposedly shown support for that, so, where is your proof?
You claimed that I support Weaver, I've asked several times for you to provide the links to where I said I supported Weaver as an upstanding person, so, where is the proof?

Why is it that even when we provide proof or links, you blow them off as RW racist, tbagger, gun totin sources?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #132)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 12:34 PM

135. No, no-one really needs to drive.

 

We got along quite famously without it for centuries...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 08:31 AM

130. 1 dead racist, 1 living?

 

Hmm, according to your formula the white guy is racist simply because the other person in this equation is black. Then it stands to reason that the black man is also racist because the other person in this equation is white. Is that close?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:02 PM

16. Ever try to reason with a violent drunk or stoner?

your false accusations of racism does more harm than good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:25 PM

29. I bet it's not false. Odds are in my favor. If I am wrong (not likely),

I 'll be right next couple of times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:29 PM

31. So provide the proof that this was racially motivated.

 

Surely you have proof because you make the accusation, I mean, after all, you wouldn't make such a vile accusation without proof would you?

Oh wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:05 PM

92. Well, statistics say you might manage to be right sometime....

 

....but this solar system isn't going to last that long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #92)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:52 AM

127. Like a broken clock or a blind squirrel. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:13 PM

102. "racial impact" <----- HOYT continues with the race card.

 

What "racial impact"? Nobody has mentioned race except you. Wonder why that is?

Due to a lack of racism in the thread, and since his first post (#4) didn't get the results he wanted, Hoyt attempts to inject racism yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:28 PM

12. And I'm sure you have proof of this, right?

 

show us the proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:00 PM

15. One can't even get you to admit randy weaver and d koresh are bad for society.

There is no proof that will change you mind. Facts are pretty clear, don't need CSI to determine what likely happened here, or in similar cases.

I understand ARMED white guys was "afraid" of UNARMED black man, but he didn't have to shoot. Patents probably instilled irrational fear in him. Throw in a ccp, and this is what you get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:04 PM

18. So in other words, no proof

 

Typical. Let's see if I got this correct,
Read part of story, or just look at headline
Make up own "facts"
Start insults against gun owners
Deflect when asked for proof of said "facts".

Is that about correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:09 PM

20. I honestly don't think you

believe any of the nonsense you are spouting.
Violent drunk beating the shit out of a guy that tried to retreat. And you spin that to:
I understand ARMED white guys was "afraid" of UNARMED black man, but he didn't have to shoot. Patents probably instilled irrational fear in him. Throw in a ccp, and this is what you get.
Did you read it? I honestly stopped believing you are really a gun controller or anti gun. I am starting to think you are a false flag parodying antis to show how absurd their arguments often are. There is no way you could have logically come to that conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:13 PM

22. And where do you get you info about "violent drunk beating... "?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:17 PM

24. Same place you got your racist white man

 

If you can do it, why can't we, although we usually have real facts, not speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:28 PM

30. You can, and have been. I think my version is valid here.

If we were in court, I'd listen to testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:32 PM

35. So prove your version is valid. Thats all we ask, provide proof,

 

You would listen to testimony, that's the funniest thing I've heard from you since I joined DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:53 PM

44. listen with a closed mind -- that's Our Hoyt. I don't think he could get past

jury selection...I can hear the words For Cause already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:48 AM

63. Not trying to be a jury member or be held to that standard.

However, I am not going to assume that just because this guy had a permit to walk around with a gun, he needed to shoot the UNARMED drunk.

I know you guys just assume that since your buddy was a permit holder, he could do no wrong. Thus, he had to shoot the UNARMED drunk or face certain death in the next split second. Sorry, I'm not buying it based on what I've seen so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #63)


Response to Hoyt (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:39 AM

71. And just what exactly have you seen so far?

 

What we've seen from you is outright racism, defending the aggressor, blaming the man who rightly defended himself from an out of control aggressor.
What we've also seen is a man who had a CCP who tried to get away from a man who was beating on him, that's right, HE TRIED TO GET AWAY, but the aggressor followed him out the door and continued to beat on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:06 AM

87. Ok then, What are you buying?

turnips off the turnip truck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:29 PM

32. If you read the stories


This is where I get violent
Specifically, he slapped one person repeatedly in the face before chasing them from the store. Upon his return, he began punching a second customer in the face which, it soon became clear, was a terrible idea.The fight moved outside where the customer, who police have not yet identified, pulled out a handgun and shot his assailant. He then waited for police to arrive and was taken into custody without incident. Yesterday afternoon, he was being interviewed by homicide detectives.

Aren't all Texans drunks who sit around and drink Lone Star beer while listening to Hank Jr.? Don't all Georgians drink moonshine while listening to Lynrd Skinnard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #32)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:37 PM

38. I'll wait for more reports. My guess is if shooter wanted to, he could

have handled it without shooting him.

I'm sure, the shooter feels he was in grave danger. But he might be wrong, lying, was just a scardy cat, or doing what right wing gun groups recommend to cover your ass in these cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:41 PM

40. The video will tell all.

The video and witnesses show him getting attacked. I would like to see what the store camera recorded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:16 PM

45. Me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:49 PM

43. Wow

 

talk about walking it back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 07:20 AM

62. "Violent drunk beating" is in the article.

Her appeared to be drunk.

The article states that he hit the victim in the face with his fist and continued to attack him as the victime tried to flee from the store.

That meets the definition of "violent beating".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #62)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:50 AM

64. Sounds like something Zimmerman would say. Of course, you just assume shooting him was only option.

I've been hit in the face plenty of times, but never thought of shooting someone.

And, like Ali, I'm still pretty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:11 AM

67. You can let someone beat on you if you want to.

I am under no obligation to be some drunk's punching bag. Start pounding on me and I will defend myself with my gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #67)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:30 AM

69. I know, you are probably one of those who'll shoot unarmed person over property, etc.

Not really impressed by machismo with a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #69)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:51 AM

77. So why don't you show us just exactly where he said

 

he would shoot an unarmed person over property? Once again Hoyt, show us the proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #77)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:56 AM

79. Ask him. He is supporting a man with a gun who shot an UNARMED drunk when other options available.

What proof do you need, Permatex? This is not a court, it is a political group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:58 AM

81. You made the claim

 

support your wild claim by providing proof that he ever indicated what you claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #69)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:20 PM

104. Not machismo, just too old to take an ass whipping and not ready to die yet. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:42 AM

72. And of course

 

the obligatory Zimmerman mention of the day which has zilch to do with this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #72)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:46 AM

75. Actually it does -- another fucker with a gun who shot an UNARMED black man when plenty of options

were available. Taking the "easy way out" by killing someone, ain't right except here in the gungeon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #75)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:49 AM

76. And you were there right?

 

You know exactly what happened right?
So if you were there, why didn't you step in with your can of beans or your bike tire, or better yet, why didn't you use a loud, firm voice to scare away the aggressor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #76)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:43 PM

106. I was there as much as you. Besides, I can read the facts released so far. Pretty obvious to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #106)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:58 PM

108. Facts?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Please enumerate the facts as you believe them to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #108)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:09 PM

109. White guy with a gun in Texas, shot a UNARMED drunk Black man and is claiming self-defense and that

shooting him was the only reasonable option.

What facts do you have to dispute my facts? I know he's a gun toter, and in your mind that makes him always right. But what other facts do you have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #109)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:30 PM

110. You don't know me nearly well enough to make any of the assumptions

you've made about me. I have never said that everyone with a concealed handgun license is always right. I don't remember reading such an opinion from anyone else, either.

I do not dispute that the attacker is black. I do not dispute that the victim is white. You seem to have conveniently left out a few facts, though.
1) The attacker initiated multiple violent actions.
2) In both instances, the attacker pursued his victims out of the store when they fled.
3) Latest information is that after chasing his victim out of the store and being shot once, the assailant followed his intended victim back into the store and continued the battery.

Your assertion that the victim is racist simply by virtue of his decision to use deadly force to defend himself is unjustified and unsupported by the evidence at hand. Your inaccurate characterization of me simply on the basis of my refusal to agree with you is likewise unjustified and unsupported. Hopefully, your intention is not to simply point fingers and demonize but I have my doubts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #110)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:43 PM

111. Maybe we'll get some photos of how badly the gun toter was hurt. My guess is, it will be even less

convincing than Zimmerman's claim of being beaten within a second of becoming a vegetable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:03 PM

114. The law does not recognize any requisite level of injury

be received in order to justify the use of deadly force, only that the threat be immediate and credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #114)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:10 PM

115. I know, gun toters hide behind the "law." Do you guys ever consider

what is moral, or do you just take it to the limit of the law when "opportunity" to shoot someone arises?

Greedy corporations, polluters, bigots, etc., always hide behind the laws - never questioning whether something is moral/right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #115)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:22 PM

117. Not in cases like this, no.

I do not have sufficient information to judge the shooter's morality and I'm not willing to make wild guesses and unsupported accusations the way some people are. All that leaves me with are the observable facts and the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #115)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:28 PM

118. It is immoral for someone to assault me. It is moral for me to defend myself.

A specific level of damage isn't needed before one can defend themselves, however a sufficient disparity of force is needed. The video hasn't been posted to the web yet, nor do I know if it will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #115)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 06:47 PM

119. Fine Hoyt, I have a challange for you.

 

Tell us exactly what level of physical injury a person must endure before using various levels of self-defense. Please be exact and thourough, with a chart that incorporates various styles of armed and unarmed assault and defense, and adjustments for relative sizes, genders, ages, fitness levels, health and economic prosperity, cultural background, ethnicity, race, and location.

As usual, we'll wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #119)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 07:34 PM

121. I don't think our Texas toter was in danger of decomposing, or having much more than a bloody nose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #121)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:44 PM

122. You were 100% correct as far as "I don't think..."...

 

and that's were you should have stopped, instead of going off the rails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #122)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:54 PM

123. From start to finish, I'm averaging 50%, significantly better than you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #123)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:58 PM

124. The hell you are.

 

Got any of those cites I've asked for in the last 24 hours?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #124)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 12:16 AM

125. Like your buddy above, opinions don't require cites.

My opinions are based upon direct observation of a number of people seriously hooked on all things guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #125)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:23 AM

126. Bullshit. Unmitigated mendacity. You made numerous claims as facts, not as opinion.

 

Cite your evidence. Now is good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #111)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:18 PM

116. Ok...

At what level of violence must one accept before responding with violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #111)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 12:29 PM

134. I'm sure you have a mental picture of how everything went down

that justifies your accusations.

Does it look anything like this? :


These guys appear to be unarmed as well so, obviously, that means they can't do any real harm, rught?



This man's assailant was also apparently unarmed. Clearly, the huge dude throwing all the punches isn't really going to hurt anyone so if the victim (who just happens to be white in this case) were to fight back with a weapon then that'd just be racism plain and simple, right? Maybe he should have started throwing hundred dollar bills at his attacker! Maybe cans of beans! Maybe if the victim had called for help all those other people standing just 3 feet away would then have rushed to his aid.

(But I wouldn't hold my breath.)


And if you run into someone like this on the street, I'm sure it'll be obvious what his intent is and what level of injury he's willing to inflict, right?
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=0509e841eae7

The law (that you show so much contempt for) is written the way it is because by the time deadly intent has become indisputable the victim is already dead or dying!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:50 PM

113. Not me

I have been hit and I have run away but not now. Too old to low run and refuse to be a victim of any violence.
That said, I try and never put myself in a position that would happen. That sucks too.
Stealing property is different than getting beaten to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #64)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 11:35 AM

142. Not really impressed by your machismo without a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:15 PM

23. I personally believe that

 

he is trying to get someone so pissed off that they will post something against the TOS, then alert and try to get them banned. Won't work with me, I've got his number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:18 PM

25. could be, but

iverglas was much better at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:22 PM

26. Before my time

 

I'll have to go to the archives and check out this iverglas.
He's really not very good at this, is he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:33 PM

36. she was a trip

but according to her, we are all misogynists and racists. Woman shooters and hunters have a bad case of false consciousness or Stockholm Syndrome of some such thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:19 PM

46. She was quite insightful if that were her conclusions, although I think "all" might be a little high

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #46)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:39 PM

49. insightful once in awhile, mostly incoherent and heavy into the

Marxist gobbledygook which was rather tiresome. In case someone assumes that is a racist term (the racist term is derived from the Korean word for "person", used like the Japanese word "jin" when used properly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobbledygook

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:48 AM

89. She had a gift

for intellectual dishonesty. She would constantly try to alter the context of others' arguments, pretend not to understand analogies, etc. IMHO, her primary goal was not the open exchange of ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:30 PM

34. I've never alerted on anyone. Bet you can't say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:33 PM

37. How do we know you haven't?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:40 PM

39. I know, you need proof. Heck, you'll believe Zimmerman and weaver, but....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:43 PM

41. Weaver is public record

official court transcripts and IG investigation reports. Zimmerman, still upcoming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:21 PM

47. To you. To me, he made an illegal gun deal while attending a friggin Ayran Nation meeting.

Plenty enough for me to crucify him in these little message text boxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #47)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:35 AM

52. And for that "offense" the FBI shot and killed his wife...

...while she was holding their baby.

BTW - The FBI paid each surviving Weaver one million dollars each.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #52)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:56 AM

65. Weaver hid behind his wife and kids, when he should have walked out (without lethal weapons).

Doesn't really matter -- believers in Ayran Nation and neo-Nazi crap will never get any respect from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #65)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:14 AM

68. His politics did NOT make it OK for the FBI to shoot on sight.

Nor did he "hide behind his wife". He as in his cabin. Amazing that you support government's summary executation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #68)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:33 AM

70. No, his trafficking in illegal guns and refusal to give himself up is what caused shooting.

His racist attitudes --and willingness to provide guns for other racists to shoot minorities -- make him not worth protecting, well to most people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:45 AM

74. Are you really that dense?

 

He never trafficked in illegal guns. As the jury said, he was entrapped by the feds, but I guess that's ok with you as was the FBI sniper shooting Vicky's face off while holding her baby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #74)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:53 AM

78. "Entrapped?" BS, he thought he was dealing with another worthless racist like himself. He thought

he could make a few bucks and supply guns that might be used to kill minorities. Weaver was in heaven. Unfortunately, all he had to do is give up. Instead he vowed to kill Marshals sent to arrest him and, in fact, had his sons try to do that. Then, he hid behind his wife. Then, he got Gerry Spence to defend his worthless ass and the jury felt sorry for him.

The fact is, Permatex, Weaver was a worthless soul and he is responsible for everything bad that happened to him. I don't think he is really a poster-boy for those who love toting guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #78)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:01 AM

82. A jury seemed to disagree with you

 

You are arguing from a position of ignorance while I am presenting facts as I have extensively studied this whole sad episode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #82)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:06 AM

84. The jury ruled on the legality of the charges brought by inept prosectutors, not the morality of

Weaver's racism, conspiring to aid other racists kill minorities, hiding behind his wife when trying to keep his worthless ass out of jail, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:10 AM

86. You really are that dense.

 

The jury condemned the morality of the govt. actions by acquiting him of all but one charge.


On edit: On second thought, I really don't think your dense, I just think that your hatred of gun owners and your "the govt. can do no wrong" attitude has closed your mind to what was clearly misconduct by the govt..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:10 PM

105. New jury instructions

"You are to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Take all of the evidence as it relates to the law into your deliberations. If that isn't enough to convict, go ahead and consider the guilty, err I mean accused's political views and morality and how worthless his ass is. Let's make it quick people, I have a 1:45 tee time."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #84)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 11:56 AM

146. I heard GITMO is hiring.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #78)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:09 PM

94. Not a poster boy.

But a perfect example of what happens when civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law are not respected and applied equally. Those how presume to act in positions of authority must not be allowed to selectively apply them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #78)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:59 PM

98. Yes, entrapped.

The undercover aent indicated the specific place that he wanted weaver to cut the barrel of the weapon. That's entrapment, for all that Weaver should have told the guy to take a hike. That's why Weaver was not even indicted on that particular charge: no way in hell a judge wouldn't have thrown it out.

Weaver's no hero, to 2ndAm supporters or anyone else with an IQ higher than room temperature. In fact, he was/is a racist idiot whose views I find literally nauseating. But the feds behaved execrably in that incident, committing one highly questionable killing (Samuel Weaver) and one outright cold-blooded murder (Vicky Weaver).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #98)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:45 PM

107. You can't make up the fact that Weaver is/was a racist neo-Nazi, ready to contribute to the Ayran

Nation members' lethal weapons cache. That's all I need to know about this worthless POS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #47)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:58 AM

57. So that made it okay to blow his wife's face off?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #57)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:44 AM

73. No, it's not OK. Weaver should have thought about that before agreeing to aid Ayran Nation in thier

intimidation of minorities. If Weaver had not conspired with those worthless souls, and had turned himself in when given ample opportunity, nothing would have happened. Instead, Weaver's family shot at agents, and Weaver used his wife as fodder.

I think Weaver was responsible for all that happened to him. Sad as it may be, if he had not engaged in detestable -- and illegal -- activities and hidden behind his wife, she would not have been shot.

Moral of story is simple -- if you love guns, don't combine them with illegal (or immoral for that matter) racist activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:56 AM

80. Oh man, Hoyt,

 

you really need to go read the Sen. transcripts or the court transcripts before you go any further with this ignorance on your part. The U.S. Marshal's fired first and killed Sammy's dog, they never announced themselves before shooting as admitted in documents.
Sammy returned fire ONLY AFTER HIS DOG WAS MURDERED BY FEDERAL AGENTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #80)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:01 AM

83. They didn't just show up one day, Weaver knew for some time they were there to arrest his gun

loving, racist ass. He hid behind his family in his racist compound surrounded by guns. "Sammy" -- are you guys friends or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #83)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:07 AM

85. How can I be friends with a dead kid?

 

Like I said, you really ought to learn the facts of the case before trying to argue. It's out there if you want to learn it, but I suspect that you won't because it won't fit your anti gun agenda.
Weaver was a racist, so what? Does that mean he deserved to have his son and wife murdered? And he would have shown up for court but the govt. changed the court date and never informed him.
But in your mind, everything the govt did is ok because he was a racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #83)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:04 PM

100. You paid his "gun loving, racist ass" $100,000

 

Your taxes, if you pay any, paid him $100,000. You also paid the *3 surviving children were paid $1,000,000 each.

*no, your beloved gestapo didn't kill all of the children this time, just one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:00 PM

99. Shooting a woman in the face, your justification.

 

Thank you for posting that, easier to see your mentality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:55 AM

128. While he may have been "responsible for all that happened to HIM", the FBI is responsible for all

that happened to his wife and family.

He hid behind his wife? What a bullshit claim. PROVE that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #128)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 08:53 AM

131. Don't ya know?

 

Hoyt doesn't need proof, he has his feelings. We've proven time and time again what a liar he is on the Weaver and Koresh incidents, I myself have provided proof of what really happened, I asked for proof for some of the wild accusations he's made about me and others here and all he does is go off on another rant.

I'll keep countering his false accusations with facts as I know others here will also.
I actually find him quite amusing as to the fact that he really doesn't seem to realize what a fool he makes of himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:18 AM

136. So, she DESERVED to die.

 

Oh, I see, it's Weaver's fault she's dead. Thank you for explaining that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #136)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:22 AM

137. Yes and 14 year old Sammy

DESERVED to be machine gunned in the back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #137)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:48 AM

140. It's like Hoyt said: "Weaver's fault"

 

Hey, it worked at Waco eh? 50+ dead but it was "Koresh's fault".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #140)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 11:42 AM

143. It was koresch's fault. He had 51 days to surrender, but chose to hide behind his flock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #143)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 11:50 AM

144. Are you ATF?

 

ATF? NSA? FBI?

Really, I'm curious, you seem to relish in defending .gov no matter who else's loved ones die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #144)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 01:29 PM

148. In the 51 days koresch could have given up, he chose to remain with his guns and underaged teenagers

You guys always want to blame an unarmed teenager who gets shot by some ole fool with a gun, why don't you blame the criminal in this case?

Since you asked, I'll ask you: Are you a member of Ayran Nation, Branch Davidians, some Militia group, unregulated militia, or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #148)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 01:46 PM

149. I don't think he could have

The could have picked him up in town when he was alone and without drama. The ATF wanted the drama to increase funding. The FBI and Texas Rangers themselves would have accented Koresh's surrender, the ATF agents in charge would have still open fired and killed a bunch of people. Plus there was Horiuchi, who other FBI snipers claimed, open fired first. He just wanted to kill people. That is why he shot Vicki Weaver in the face, because he wanted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #149)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:03 PM

151. Why would they pick up a gun nut in town where innocents are around? That would be crazy/stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #148)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 02:15 PM

150. "Since you asked, " - and to my surprise...

 




I don't see where you made any effort at all to answer my question.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #136)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:33 AM

138. No one deserved to die. But, blame it on weaver's illegal and immoral activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #138)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:44 AM

139. HELLO..................Lon Horiuchi = $3.1m out-of-court settlement

 

Lon Horiuchi, of Waco and Ruby Ridge fame, cost your side $3,100,000



HELLO, IS THIS THING ON?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #138)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 11:52 AM

145. What exactly was Weaver convicted of?

Oh wait, nothing. Thought crimes have no place in a liberal democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #145)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:08 PM

152. What was bush/cheney convicted of? How about Hitler, Stalin, OJ, Jack the Ripper, Blake, Anthony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #152)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:29 PM

153. I only did a quick search, there may be more

bush/cheney-Former President George W Bush, his vice president, Dick Cheney, and six other members of his administration have been found guilty of war crimes by a tribunal in Malaysia.

Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and five of their legal advisers were tried in their absence and convicted on Saturday.

Victims of torture told a panel of five judges in Kuala Lumpur of their suffering at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the evidence, Briton Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, said he was beaten, put in a hood and left in solitary confinement. Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi said she was stripped and humiliated in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Transcripts of the five-day trial will be sent to the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, the United Nations and the Security Council.http://www.disinfo.com/2012/05/malaysian-war-crimes-tribunal-finds-bush-and-cheney-guilty/

Hitler- public disturbance and high treason

Stalin- exiled seven times for organizing paramilitaries, inciting strikes, spreading propaganda and raising money through bank robberies, ransom kidnappings and extortion.

OJ- Robbery, kidnapping, coercion, conspiracy

Jack the Ripper- never identified

Blake- which one, my pop culture isn't so great

Anthony- (I know this one) providing false information to a law enforcement officer



What do any of these have to do with Weaver?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #153)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:31 PM

156. What do they have to do with weaver? They are immoral people who might not have been convicted.

Again, just because something is legal -- like toting a gun in Chuck E Cheeze -- doesn't make it right.

Weaver is/was a racist gun trafficker who conspired with Ayran Nation. Low life Gerry Spence -- willing to defend the racist gun trafficking, hide behind his wife, scum -- got him off. Big deal, he's a friggin worthless soul just like those I listed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #156)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:50 PM

157. lowlife Gerry Spence?

The guy that got justice for Karen Silkwood? Defended Earth First founder? Educated Wyomingites the evil of "tort reform"? Bullshit. He is one of the greatest liberals in my home state.

Spence gained attention for the Karen Silkwood case. Karen Silkwood was a chemical technician at the Kerr-McGee plutonium-production plant, where she became an activist and vocal critic of plant safety, what would now be known as a whistleblower. On November 13, 1974, Silkwood died in a fatal one-car crash under suspicious circumstances after reportedly gathering evidence for her union. Spence represented Silkwood's father and children, who charged that Kerr–McGee was responsible for exposing Silkwood to dangerous levels of radiation. Spence won a $10.5 million verdict for the family.


In civil litigation, Spence won a $52 million verdict against McDonald's Corporation on behalf of a small, family-owned ice cream company. A medical malpractice verdict of over $4 million established a new standard for nursing care in Utah. In 1992 Spence earned $33.5 million verdicts for emotional and punitive damages for his quadriplegic client, after a major insurance company refused to pay on the $50,000 policy


During the election season of 2004, Spence, a vocal opponent of tort reform, crisscrossed his native Wyoming spearheading a series of self-funded town hall-style meetings to inform voters of an upcoming ballot measure, Constitutional Amendment D, which would have limited Wyoming citizens' ability to recover compensation if injured by medical malpractice. The ballot measure failed, with a 50.3% "No" vote.


He is the founder and director of the non-profit Trial Lawyers College, where, per its mission statement, lawyers and judges "committed to the jury system" are trained to help achieve justice for individuals fighting "corporate and government oppression," particularly those individuals who could be described as "the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned."
Spence is also the founder of Lawyers and Advocates for Wyoming, a non-profit, public interest law firm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #152)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:30 PM

154. From the top

They never had their day in court
OJ: the DA was stupid and racist cops
Jack the Ripper: no one has clue who that was
Blake: Don't remember the case.
Anthony: The DA could not show that a crime was committed or what the cause of death was. She was convicted of being a shitty mother. Even if she was convicted for murder, she still would have walked. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from Anthony's defense team and judge. If Florida, that is a BFD and gets an automatic mistrial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:45 PM

42. Naw

 

I'll take your word for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:56 AM

56. THE Randy Weaver that was awarded $100,000 ?

 

Or the three Weaver children that were awarded $1,000,000 each? You know, the three Weaver children that didn't get their face blown off like their mother did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:07 PM

93. Make shit up much?

 

No-one ever claimed they were good for society.

What has been stated is that they commited no crimes worthy of violent attack from the government, let alone summary execution.

Unless you can cite to someone claiming they were "good for society"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to permatex (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:02 AM

59. Hoyt is on the hotline with DPD as we speak.

 

I mean, he says the odds are with him so what does DPD have to lose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:40 AM

55. There ought to be a law, eh Hoyt?

 

A person of one race can't shoot a person of another race, sound good?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:01 PM

91. Cite your evidence of the shooter's racism, please.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:37 AM

53. No RACE-BAITING here folks, move along.

 


Wed Jul 11, 2012, 07:51 PM
Hoyt (7,560 posts)
4. Am I understanding a white guy shot a black guy. Guess that means no charges, and

Texas, gun stores will be full of white guys arming up. Typical.






Wow, this post is still here? What has the DU come to? Law-abiding gunowners can be called "crazies" and racist snarks are par for the course. Again, wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tejas (Reply #53)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 11:14 AM

88. I doubt it was even alerted. If it was, I wish someone would share the results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:30 PM

33. Has there been video of this case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #33)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:34 PM

48. You Tube

 

is full of videos of the hearings and various interviews. It is well documented. The Fed's didn't get a chance to destroy the evidence like they did at WACO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #48)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 11:46 PM

50. I mean the e-z trip shooting. why would feds be involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:59 AM

58. Sorry

 

Bad brain tonight....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #33)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:37 AM

54. Yes, but not released yet.

I google every couple of days to see if anything new is out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:18 PM

103. If the POS weren't dead, he would be in jail.

 

If he were alive, he would be in jail on multiple charges of Aggravated Assault. But he's not in jail because he played the stupid-game, he played it until he won a prize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM

147. You know, it's funny...

 

You know, it's funny how Hoyt immediately accused the victim of racism without ever stopping to consider that the aggressor who was targeting white customers was himself, a racist.

Whatever Hoyt. All I need to know is one HUMAN attacked another, and it ended poorly for for the more shortsighted of the two.

Personally, I like the idea that people who would viciously assault the innocent have to consider their demise as a possible outcome.

Hell of a deterrent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread