Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
103. Right, because basing a "take" on the report is stupid, while
Mon May 28, 2012, 02:15 PM
May 2012

wishing beatings upon old people is less stupid. I think you'd have a hard time coming up with a good point if you crashed into a needle factory.

"Motorcyclist Shot After Assaulting 65-Year-Old Man at Traffic Light" seems more accurate to me. cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #1
That certainly seems to be the case here. proud2BlibKansan May 2012 #3
OTOH I'd happily see the 65-year-old prosecuted if he were carrying the gun illegally. cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #6
Exactly. Aerows May 2012 #11
funny how they try to push the blame on the motorist and not the cyclist. WI_DEM May 2012 #63
Here's a clue for you.. sendero May 2012 #65
Here's a better clue. Clames May 2012 #77
At a stop light, *after* the incident?!? X_Digger May 2012 #83
You approve of taking the law into your own hands? L0oniX May 2012 #126
+1 4th law of robotics May 2012 #94
And you know this how, Professor ? Kingofalldems May 2012 #116
Because they left out key details 4th law of robotics May 2012 #143
I disagree with the term "road rage" for this incident. ZombieHorde May 2012 #2
I see your point. FarPoint May 2012 #4
You misread the article. ManiacJoe May 2012 #108
Foolish thing to do in the 1st place oldernwiser May 2012 #122
+1 L0oniX May 2012 #127
Amen to that n/t deutsey May 2012 #178
Oh..... got it now....thanks FarPoint May 2012 #164
Just another thug Life Long Dem May 2012 #5
Which one, the shooter or the assaulter? Ikonoklast May 2012 #9
The guy who cut off the wife needs glasses or needs to look out for motorcyclist Life Long Dem May 2012 #16
Perhaps, but does that give the motorcyclist the right to beat the crap ... spin May 2012 #43
"...and police said the motorcyclist assaulted the 65-year-old driver..." BiggJawn May 2012 #7
An armed man never gets the beating he deserves. Robb May 2012 #10
An armed man Aerows May 2012 #12
Ah, thank goodness an eyewitness has stepped forward! Robb May 2012 #14
No, obviously not Aerows May 2012 #17
Insurance companies call them "crashes" because they say there are no "accidents" WriteWrong May 2012 #124
You think old men who cut people off should be beaten. Union Scribe May 2012 #34
You think motorists should kill whoever they please. Robb May 2012 #40
Yeah you seem to have a real grasp of the situation Union Scribe May 2012 #41
Your take is only slightly stupider than mine, in coming first. Robb May 2012 #60
Right, because basing a "take" on the report is stupid, while Union Scribe May 2012 #103
I commend you for defending the shooter. Robb May 2012 #109
I'm defending a realistic look at the reported facts Union Scribe May 2012 #114
Within which Union Scribe reveals bias. Robb May 2012 #132
Did the guy get shot outside that car or not? Union Scribe May 2012 #135
Again, according to the shooter's statements to police. Robb May 2012 #138
But is that enough to use deadly force on him? treestar May 2012 #141
You think the 65-year-old motorist WANTED to kill the motorcyclist? slackmaster May 2012 #71
He isn't the only one suggesting that, either. Union Scribe May 2012 #105
Why was he carrying a gun if he didn't have the intention of killing someone? baldguy May 2012 #115
Holy Shit. PavePusher May 2012 #144
Yes, isn't it obvious that's the case? baldguy May 2012 #154
Sounds like projection to me slackmaster May 2012 #171
Do people who carry fire extinguishers in their cars intend on having fires? X_Digger May 2012 #157
A gun is more akin to a match than a fire extinguisher. baldguy May 2012 #162
That's not an answer, that's a dodge. X_Digger May 2012 #173
His intention was to stop the threat to his life. Nothing more, nothing less. hack89 May 2012 #163
The only lawful purpose of carrying a gun is for self-defense slackmaster May 2012 #168
Do you wear your seat belt with the intention of getting into an accident? metalbot May 2012 #177
One of the points that pro gun people make constantly is this.. Fumesucker May 2012 #146
Slight correction sarisataka May 2012 #150
+1000 baldguy May 2012 #152
"center of mass" =/= "shoot to kill". PavePusher May 2012 #161
Oh bullshit.. Fumesucker May 2012 #167
Your unfamiliarity with firearms and their capabilities in real life is obvious. PavePusher May 2012 #183
No Fumesucker, you have it COMPLETELY wrong slackmaster May 2012 #169
In theory theory and practice are identical.. Fumesucker May 2012 #172
As I suggested previously, take a self-defense class slackmaster May 2012 #174
The class would be theory.. Fumesucker May 2012 #175
Doing something that you know is likely to kill someone is not the same as WANTING to kill someone slackmaster May 2012 #176
But often an armed man is able to stop the beating he didn't deserve... spin May 2012 #42
If an 18-year-old kid knocks your daughter off her bike into a ditch Robb May 2012 #61
What else is different about your scenario and the actual story -- oh yes an actual physical assault aikoaiko May 2012 #75
A *reported* physical assault. Robb May 2012 #76
Yes, a reported physical assault. aikoaiko May 2012 #82
That's why the man left the scene of the shooting.. Fumesucker May 2012 #86
Target fixation? n/t LACarMan May 2012 #179
Interesting scenario ... spin May 2012 #91
What if the 18 year old was physically disabled, a paraplegic for instance? Fumesucker May 2012 #110
In that case there would be a significant disparity between the two ... spin May 2012 #119
Are you endorsing 'beatings' for traffic violations? X_Digger May 2012 #85
An unarmed man never gets to beat an armed man. Incitatus May 2012 #118
Busier than one legged man in an ass kickin contest nolabels May 2012 #166
Having a loaded gun means never having to say you're sorry? :) oldernwiser May 2012 #125
So the court system should give the old guy a beating? L0oniX May 2012 #129
Yep. n/t Aerows May 2012 #13
Very possible gramps helped instigate the situation. Whatever happened to SWTORFanatic May 2012 #21
How many 65 year old boxers have you seen on TV? spin May 2012 #46
Doesn't matter, many don't know their limitations or instigate anyway. My SWTORFanatic May 2012 #67
Why would the guy hit her? spin May 2012 #93
Nope, suburbs of Milwaukee, WI SWTORFanatic May 2012 #139
I have encountered such people ... spin May 2012 #160
There's no detail in the article about the assault treestar May 2012 #84
It's not like the movies where you get to beat up people for any reason... L0oniX May 2012 #128
Cagers imperil motorcyclists all the time ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #8
That's why I quit riding. BiggJawn May 2012 #90
Here in CA where we can legally lane split, the harassment is often overt and nasty ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #92
Never got into line dancing, and it's not legal here. BiggJawn May 2012 #112
Why did the 65 year old feel the compunction to argue with the motorcyclist? Broderick May 2012 #15
Hello? Life Long Dem May 2012 #18
Like I said I wasn't there Broderick May 2012 #19
You mean you didn't "stand your ground" with a total hedgehog May 2012 #20
Precisely Broderick May 2012 #22
A lot of what ifs with a gun Life Long Dem May 2012 #27
Lol. I had a gas pedal to move if necessary. Broderick May 2012 #31
Or ended the situation. Life Long Dem May 2012 #32
I wouldn't want blood on my hands Broderick May 2012 #33
You're comparing this guy to Zimmerman? Union Scribe May 2012 #35
In a sense both were emboldened Broderick May 2012 #38
They were stopped at a red light... Kaleva May 2012 #44
Ok Broderick May 2012 #50
That's what the news article said. Kaleva May 2012 #53
say the gun was not present sarisataka May 2012 #45
Someone downthread would have said... cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #49
Good grief Broderick May 2012 #51
I can no longer win the virtue of guns question Broderick May 2012 #54
I am not looking to "win" sarisataka May 2012 #55
It's not a knee jerk reaction Broderick May 2012 #185
For myself sarisataka May 2012 #186
Great point Broderick May 2012 #188
I agree, there are those sarisataka May 2012 #189
Fair enough Broderick May 2012 #190
It has been a pleasant conversation sarisataka May 2012 #191
Lol Broderick May 2012 #193
No, it's not a question of "virtue", rather your attempt at mentalism Marengo May 2012 #97
Where are you getting "two deaths" from? Clames May 2012 #80
The situations are very comparable treestar May 2012 #98
No, they aren't. Union Scribe May 2012 #101
Yes they are also contrastable treestar May 2012 #106
You're a little off track. Union Scribe May 2012 #107
They both involve self defense treestar May 2012 #111
Thank you. Broderick May 2012 #184
"This guy shot someone who was assaulting him." Life Long Dem May 2012 #123
And because of Zimmerman it can't ever really happen? Union Scribe May 2012 #130
No. I'm saying we can compare the two incidents. treestar May 2012 #136
"The old man should have done more than just blow him away" Scootaloo May 2012 #24
I mean he had a right to blow him away. Life Long Dem May 2012 #28
I started legally carrying a handgun 15 years ago ... spin May 2012 #47
I carry and have found the same attitude change in myself. L0oniX May 2012 #131
That's a very creative interpretation of the events as described slackmaster May 2012 #70
I'm a bike rider. I avoid getting off my bike at the light to assault retirees. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #23
That always worked for me when I was riding. BiggJawn May 2012 #25
One more gun finds its victim. baldguy May 2012 #26
nah.... gunz aren't killing, people are! fascisthunter May 2012 #30
well, guns don't pull their own triggers, do they? nt Skip Intro May 2012 #37
One more man finds his victim? Honeycombe8 May 2012 #39
One more spoon makes a child fat. cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #48
Yep Broderick May 2012 #52
Except that only guns create the situations in which they can be used. baldguy May 2012 #62
You are assuming the cut off was an accidental act.. Fumesucker May 2012 #64
And that brings up the possibility that the old guy was looking for someone to shoot. baldguy May 2012 #74
And that brings up the possibility the wife conspired with the driver to kill her husband aikoaiko May 2012 #78
Typical brain-addled RW response: Blame the victim. baldguy May 2012 #79
You don't really understand sarcasm, do you? Even with the :sarcasm: aikoaiko May 2012 #81
Hint: you and the anti-self-defense brigade already are. nt Union Scribe May 2012 #102
By your logic George Zimmerman is a victim too. baldguy May 2012 #117
Cutting someone off is like hunting down and murdering a teenager? Union Scribe May 2012 #120
If it was intentional, of course it is. baldguy May 2012 #134
Cager logic at its best ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #95
What is a "gunner", who are the "gunners" you refer to, and can you provide proof that ALL... Marengo May 2012 #99
Sorry, but guns don't "create" anything.... PavePusher May 2012 #148
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #29
The gun owner didn't start the fight hack89 May 2012 #36
Imagine if every fistfight ended with someone being shot and killed Marrah_G May 2012 #56
You found what I believe is the key point sarisataka May 2012 #57
Then maybe people shouldn't start fights Union Scribe May 2012 #58
The point is that the presence of a gun makes people behave in ways they would not normally Marrah_G May 2012 #59
What is "normal" behavior for a person being assaulted? Marengo May 2012 #100
Driving away would be one. Marrah_G May 2012 #140
Sounds perfectly reasonable...from and to someone not currently under assault. Marengo May 2012 #170
This is a topic you and I likely will never agree on Marrah_G May 2012 #182
You've intrigued my curiosity... Marengo May 2012 #192
So as a society we should prefer Union Scribe May 2012 #104
So there was no other choice but to shoot? Marrah_G May 2012 #142
So there was no other choice but to shoot? sarisataka May 2012 #145
Exactly true. The whole mentality will lead to more shootings treestar May 2012 #87
People wouldn't be so quick to assault others. JVS May 2012 #159
There would definitely be fewer fistfights. 4th law of robotics May 2012 #187
Some more details JonLP24 May 2012 #66
Given that the motorcyclist's wife was present it seems reasonable to get away from her slackmaster May 2012 #69
Perhaps JonLP24 May 2012 #72
Given that nobody was killed or even seriously injured, the story is quite forgettable slackmaster May 2012 #73
Yes, I think it would be natural to run out of there treestar May 2012 #88
Began to assault the driver treestar May 2012 #89
That too has me puzzled ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #96
It seems in Missouri, intent to assault = assault. Robb May 2012 #113
The Castile Doctrine would apply to that situation in Florida. L0oniX May 2012 #133
From the description of events in the brief article, it looks to me like a justifiable shooting slackmaster May 2012 #68
The fact that he was drunk ... spin May 2012 #121
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO BATTER OR ASSAULT ANYONE FOR ANY REASON! L0oniX May 2012 #137
On the other hand there are excellent reasons to shoot people.. Fumesucker May 2012 #147
Yes sarisataka May 2012 #149
But that wouldn't be a good enough reason to hit someone? Fumesucker May 2012 #151
It would sarisataka May 2012 #153
Thanks.. Fumesucker May 2012 #155
I don't see the logical hole hack89 May 2012 #181
You need to quit sucking on fumes before it's too late. L0oniX May 2012 #156
Aww.. Making fun of someone's name.. Fumesucker May 2012 #158
When assholes (almost) collide. n/t Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #165
Vehicular homicide. ooops! My bad. Javaman May 2012 #180
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #194
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Man, 65, shoots motorcycl...»Reply #103