Think twice before announcing that party on Youtube

[Caladan 19]

I'm quoting 'mowing down every last one.' Judging by the arrests, this fight is six on two.

I have no doubt the guy was scared, but arguing that that gives him the right to shoot everyone on his property and that he should have done that... well, I hope it's just your inner Leonidas talking because if that's how you actually think the law works, you're going to end up charged with murder.

Still ... 6 vs 2 is not good odds. I personally would feel threatened as one of the 2 ... wouldn't you ?

And since whiskey (alcohol) was stolen ... it wasn't ON the property ... it is IN the dwelling ... or at least that is how the story reads

(that is unless the UK has whiskey and champaign growing on trees)

YOU still havent answered my question? Why ? What's so hard about it?

In this situation YOU are in the wrong ... a shot is fired ... do you charge the homeoner or leave?

The protection is to STOP the attack with extreme measures if required ... not shoot everyone in sight. Once the attack is stopped ... what is the point to keep shooting? Or is this how YOU would have reacted ... kept shooting that is ?

Common sense and the law dictates that you stop when the threat is over.

I'm just quoting Deadpool X; he's the one arguing that he would have shot them all and told the parents of the 'mongrels' to go pound salt.

I think that's absurd. And not legally justified in most states.

I think it is possible that firing a weapon could have resolved the whole thing quicker. (Hard to say, as the fight seemed to have started when the dad pushed the kids.) But I also think it's possible that drawing the weapon might have caused some of these crazy kids to respond in kind. Pretending the most likely result is the guy heroically drawing his weapon and the bad guys all scattering isn't really responsible. It's just as likely that instead of a story where two people are injured, we have a story where a guy pulls a gun, gets it taken off of him by the rowdy kid, gets shot himself. Wife and sons mourn.

I don't mind self-defense, but the Rambo mentality surprises me.

[FVA 0]

i just don't like gun,

we've already figured that out

at least that!

Edited October 15, 2007 by FVA

[DeadPoolX 9]

"You people" in the U.S.? It sounds like to me you have some sort of issue with Americans. I suppose that should hardly surprise me, considering the way you're responding to this situation. I just find it sad that someone who's here, supposedly to because they wish to marry an American (one of "those people" in the U.S.) and eventually live in the United States, feels that way about their future/current spouse's countrymen.

"supposedly to because they wish to marry an American" - please explain what you meant by this: you said it because you don't know if i came here to marry an american, or you are trying to imply some sort of fraud?

you're practically saying here that if i fell crazy inlove with an american i should agree with everything my husband's countrymen are believing? hell, i don't agree with 80% of the things my own countrymen are believing. and i don't agree with the fact that the burmese government is using guns, either. i just don't like gun, and don't agree with anyone who believes that guns are a solution to something. that was a silly thing to say, and a silly argument for you to use in order to make me feel guilty i don't like guns. most of our friends here don't like/own guns. I'll make sure i'll let them know they are bad citizens because they wouldn't kill some kids that punched them.

i love my husband to death. if he would have such a warm tingly feeling about guns like most of the people in america do, i would probably have a big problem with it and i probably wouldn't have married him. My luck is that he hates guns and the fact that any psychotic person can own one here (i.e. Virginia Tech). Guns should be used more responsibly, not as random as "oh no some kid punched me *zbang**zbang**zbang* pfew, there. now we're safe!"

i'm not twisting anything. the family should've walked away. the kid was "yelling" in the dad's face. yelling is totally different that beating, isn't it? the dad was the first one to use physical violence. he should've taken his family, walk away and call the police, and i'm sure him and his kid wouldn't have beaten.

No, I am not saying that since you're in love with an American you must agree with everything Americans or the U.S. government does. I am a natural-born U.S. citizen and I don't agree with everything Americans do or the U.S. government does either. I never made that claim, so please -- don't put words into my mouth.

I assume you came here to marry your husband. I don't think you're a fraud, so I don't know where you got that idea from either.

The reason I said what I did was because you used the phrase "you people." Maybe you don't understand the connotation that holds, but in the United States, that phrase was generally reserved for minority classes and others who were "looked down upon" by the elite. The term "you people" is not a nice nor a welcomed choice of words in this country and it smacks of revulsion.

Firearms cannot be legally purchased by any "psychotic person" off the street. There is a criminal background check, and if it comes up positive, you can't purchase the gun. Furthermore, if there is a serious psychological disorder on file, you won't be about to get a gun either. The situation involving the Virginia Tech gunman was an interesting one, since the reason for that was due to a breakdown in the system somewhere and a lack of records on the gunman himself.

Obviously, if someone has never committed a crime or been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, purchases a firearm and then uses it to kill a number of people somewhere, there wasn't a whole lot anyone could do to prevent it as far as purchasing the gun itself goes. We can't reasonably tell someone -- who's supposedly sane and has a clear criminal record -- that he or she can't purchase a gun. It would be a clear violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm not against more checks-and-balances in the process to purchase a firearm; however, we cannot tell people they can't do it at all. U.S. citizens are guaranteed this right and once we begin stripping amendments away, the entire foundation of the country will eventually collapse.

If you'll reread the article again, you'll see that in the 10th paragraph, it clearly states that the father was attacked when he attempted to get the gatecrashers to leave the property. It makes no mention of any "pushing" or "shoving." So theoretically speaking, the "pushing" and "shoving" could've happened after the father tried to get the teenagers to leave. The article gives no clear definition of a timeline, so it's up to the reader to piece together the events.

In any event, the teenagers who hostile intruders and did indeed post a threat to the entire family. If this were not true, the worst that would've happened might have been some vandalism, but instead, an 18 year-old may be crippled for life.

Edited October 15, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[FVA 0]

No, I am not saying that since you're in love with an American you must agree with everything Americans or the U.S. government does. I am a natural-born U.S. citizen and I don't agree with everything Americans do or the U.S. government does either. I never made that claim, so please -- don't put words into my mouth.

you just assumed that because i don't agree with guns means i have a problem with Americans. i guess it was a linguistic issue here, but i still felt the need to explain that I have no problem whatsoever with Americans, otherwise I wouldn't live here. Most of the people I met here are awesome. I didn't know that using "you people" has some weird connotation to it.

I assume you came here to marry your husband. I don't think you're a fraud, so I don't know where you got that idea from either.

from the use of the word "supposedly"

Firearms cannot be legally purchased by any "psychotic person" off the street. There is a criminal background check, and if it comes up positive, you can't purchase the gun. Furthermore, if there is a serious psychological disorder on file, you won't be about to get a gun either. The situation involving the Virginia Tech gunman was an interesting one, since the reason for that was due to a breakdown in the system somewhere and a lack of records on the gunman himself.

Obviously, if someone has never committed a crime or been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, purchases a firearm and then uses it to kill a number of people somewhere, there wasn't a whole lot anyone could do to prevent it as far as purchasing the gun itself goes. We can't reasonably tell someone -- who's supposedly sane and has a clear criminal record -- that he or she can't purchase a gun. It would be a clear violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm not against more checks-and-balances in the process to purchase a firearm; however, we cannot tell people they can't do it at all. U.S. citizens are guaranteed this right and once we begin stripping amendments away, the entire foundation of the country will eventually collapse.

i'll just say this: in Romania, when a$$holes would comment on the street, I would reply back if they were being disrespectful and make them apologize. In US I am afraid to say anything to guys that do that, because I am afraid they'll pull out a gun and shoot me. And the fact that we live next to the governor's house in Denver and on friday evenings I hear gunshots in the near by club's parking lot makes me feel paranoid and scared and unsafe. And having a gun wouldn't make me feel better.

You're probably used to it, since that's the way you had it all your life, but for me it just feels wrong, constitutional right or not.

If you'll reread the article again, you'll see that in the 10th paragraph, it clearly states that the father was attacked when he attempted to get the gatecrashers to leave the property. It makes no mention of any "pushing" or "shoving." So theoretically speaking, the "pushing" and "shoving" could've happened after the father tried to get the teenagers to leave. The article gives no clear definition of a timeline, so it's up to the reader to piece together the events.

In any event, the teenagers who hostile intruders and did indeed post a threat to the entire family. If this were not true, the worst that would've happened might have been some vandalism, but instead, an 18 year-old may be crippled for life.

i never said that what those kids did was ok. It was f...ed up and very wrong. I just don't think that responding with more violence would've solved anything. What can I say, I'm a big fan of Gandhi.

[Jaseball 0]

The minute they entered my house I'd be in fear of losing my life and the lives of my family and would have asked Mr. Shotgun for some help.

[Ban Hammer 14,702]

I didn't know that using "you people" has some weird connotation to it.

oh it does. use it in the wrong company and you'll be getting at the least, cold stares.

And the fact that we live next to the governor's house in Denver and on friday evenings I hear gunshots in the near by club's parking lot makes me feel paranoid and scared and unsafe. And having a gun wouldn't make me feel better.

You're probably used to it, since that's the way you had it all your life, but for me it just feels wrong, constitutional right or not.

maybe you just live in a crappy neighborhood. out where i live (in the country) i occasionally hear gunshots but it's someone hunting. so save the sarcasm

i never said that what those kids did was ok. It was f...ed up and very wrong. I just don't think that responding with more violence would've solved anything. What can I say, I'm a big fan of Gandhi.

all well and wonderful but i seriously doubt gandhi coulda resolved this peacefully.

[natty bumppo 297]

i'm not twisting anything. the family should've walked away. the kid was "yelling" in the dad's face. yelling is totally different that beating, isn't it? the dad was the first one to use physical violence. he should've taken his family, walk away and call the police, and i'm sure him and his kid wouldn't have beaten.

The smart move may have been:

At the moment Dad was contacted to return home because of the problems ... was to have notified the police immediately and met the police on the scene.

"After the gatecrashers arrived at their detached house in Chippenham, Wiltshire, they received a phone call from Stephen asking them to come home. His father was attacked when he asked the gatecrashers to leave."

But ... we weren't there and hindsight is usually 20-20.

And ... I'm sure there is a "rest of the story" to this short article.

edit: can't spell worth a fig ... had to fix som spel'in

Edited October 15, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[FVA 0]

And the fact that we live next to the governor's house in Denver and on friday evenings I hear gunshots in the near by club's parking lot makes me feel paranoid and scared and unsafe. And having a gun wouldn't make me feel better.

You're probably used to it, since that's the way you had it all your life, but for me it just feels wrong, constitutional right or not.

maybe you just live in a crappy neighborhood. out where i live (in the country) i occasionally hear gunshots but it's someone hunting. so save the sarcasm

only if you save the patronizing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'm not twisting anything. the family should've walked away. the kid was "yelling" in the dad's face. yelling is totally different that beating, isn't it? the dad was the first one to use physical violence. he should've taken his family, walk away and call the police, and i'm sure him and his kid wouldn't have beaten.

The smart move may have been:

At the moment Dad was contacted to return home because of the problems ... was to have notified the police immediately and met the police on the scene.

"After the gatecrashers arrived at their detached house in Chippenham, Wiltshire, they received a phone call from Stephen asking them to come home. His father was attacked when he asked the gatecrashers to leave."

But ... we weren't there and hindsight is usually 20-20.

And ... I'm sure there is a "rest of the story" to this short article.

edit: can't spell worth a fig ... had to fix som spel'in

At a guess he probably thought he could handle a 'few' gatecrashers, as in a half-dozen or so. It's hard to fathom your house being invaded by 100+ people - that's a riot. More or less.

[Ban Hammer 14,702]

And the fact that we live next to the governor's house in Denver and on friday evenings I hear gunshots in the near by club's parking lot makes me feel paranoid and scared and unsafe. And having a gun wouldn't make me feel better.

You're probably used to it, since that's the way you had it all your life, but for me it just feels wrong, constitutional right or not.

maybe you just live in a crappy neighborhood. out where i live (in the country) i occasionally hear gunshots but it's someone hunting. so save the sarcasm

only if you save the patronizing.

the above does not inclulde that.

now if you want patronizing, dearie, i can go there and even use single syllable words for you

[FVA 0]

And the fact that we live next to the governor's house in Denver and on friday evenings I hear gunshots in the near by club's parking lot makes me feel paranoid and scared and unsafe. And having a gun wouldn't make me feel better.

You're probably used to it, since that's the way you had it all your life, but for me it just feels wrong, constitutional right or not.

maybe you just live in a crappy neighborhood. out where i live (in the country) i occasionally hear gunshots but it's someone hunting. so save the sarcasm

only if you save the patronizing.

the above does not inclulde that.

now if you want patronizing, dearie, i can go there and even use single syllable words for you

pfft.