Reply With Quote
It is what it is. Did you change your mind about it too?Shooting cos feeling threatened good now.
Sadbert
Shooting cos feeling threatened good now.
It is what it is. Did you change your mind about it too?Shooting cos feeling threatened good now.
Killings and shootings = violence. The aiming is suspect in Chicago.
I said 20 billion. If total deaths is all that matters, why wouldn't a death rate of 1 per 100K still be just as relevant as 650 per 100K?
In order to know the response was poor, you'd need to know what the death rate would be in a good response. You don't have a standard. That's my point. You're just using big numbers as smoke and mirrors and you're picking the most sensational numbers you can find to support your "orange man bad" narrative. The real facts are in the death rates per jurisdiction. You might as well blame the Surgeon General for the quality of care in your local clinics.
Accessory to murder isn't a civil cause of action.
They would need to be vicariously liable for the shooter's actions to be liable for negligence. If they're not vicariously liable for the shooter's actions then they wouldn't have any liability at all. Do you know what vicarious liability is?
Maybe Colorado is different, but I know that there's a very limited scope in Texas for when aiding and abetting applies in civil suits, and this is outside of it.
The USA isn't a jurisdiction now?
Novel.
Pop and game 6?
I haven't seen anything to equate this to the Trayvon Martin case.
I know lefties are desperate for these kinds of parallels.
I saw what was effectively an execution.
But at least you're owning that your morals are utterly convenient.
They all did when they sold their souls for 1M.
Are you just leaving out the assault?
Who assaulted whom has not been shown on this board.Are you just leaving out the assault?
More semantics. The topic was clear when you responded to it. Maybe you need a refresher.
What the are you even ranting about?I said 20 billion. If total deaths is all that matters, why wouldn't a death rate of 1 per 100K still be just as relevant as 650 per 100K?
In order to know the response was poor, you'd need to know what the death rate would be in a good response. You don't have a standard. That's my point. You're just using big numbers as smoke and mirrors and you're picking the most sensational numbers you can find to support your "orange man bad" narrative. The real facts are in the death rates per jurisdiction. You might as well blame the Surgeon General for the quality of care in your local clinics.
Death rate absolutely matters. It doesn't help your argument.
It has. Your demanding muh video doesn't change anything.
What's your theory that includes the guard's attacking the milliner first?
Media put together a picture collage and stuff
That was the answer, moron.
Nope, never needed one. I don't see what that has to do with the conservative standard that shooters are justified in killing people they are threatened by.
What's your theory that includes the guard's attacking the milliner first?
Step up.
I haven't jumped to any conclusions on who initiated what. You have. Moar convenience is all.
Of course you've concluded the guard struck the milliner first.
It's your legal theory.
No, it wasn't. I asked you why all of a sudden it matters to conservatives that a law was broken prior to the incident that occurred.
You brought up Trayvon, not me. Where's the video of Trayvon attacking or provoking George Zimmerman?
You can't seriously deny that you and other conservatives have spent hours in here rationalizing when other people have been shot in a confrontation.
I said no to the $1M
Oh, look; Dumpster is desperately trying to put words in people's mouths.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions