You need to quit sucking on fumes before it's too late. (Reply #156)

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

Response to Fumesucker (Reply #147)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:16 PM

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

156. You need to quit sucking on fumes before it's too late.

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.