Your take is only slightly stupider than mine, in coming first. (Reply #60)

In the discussion thread: Man, 65, shoots motorcyclist in road rage incident [View all]

Response to Union Scribe (Reply #41)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:34 AM

Robb (39,665 posts)

60. Your take is only slightly stupider than mine, in coming first.

Neither of us were there. You leapt to defend one side with, pun intended, extreme prejudice.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

194 replies	Author	Time	Post
Man, 65, shoots motorcyclist in road rage incident [View all]	proud2BlibKansan	May 2012	OP
"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

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.