CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:50 am
 


What if, what if...

This is Texas. Different from the rest, obviously. They should have known. Now they do. Tough luck.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7710
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:00 am
 


Texas Justice TV

Image


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8738
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:35 am
 


sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
The main difference between a conservativa and a liberal is which one has been mugged.

.
If by "mugged" you mean robbed than only 0.823411 per 1,000 people in Canada are robbed per year. At that rate Harper will never get a majority.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15102
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:52 pm
 


Brenda Brenda:
What if, what if...

This is Texas. Different from the rest, obviously. They should have known. Now they do. Tough luck.
Now they're dead, and with any luck and justice a trigger happy old man will spend his last days in jail.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:05 pm
 


lily lily:
Shooting someone in the back is cowardly, period. It's not relevant to anything else.


Funny, for someone so opposed to violence and etc. you think that The Code of The Old West should apply here and that a potentially armed criminal should have an opportunity to 'draw' before shooting him?

Got news for you, PLENTY of violent criminals get shot in the back when fleeing the police. Should the police also implement The Code of The Old West here and not shoot until a weapon is actually aimed at them?

More breaking news: I personally *poofed* a number of people in the back. Allowing them to escape was not an option. No doubt there's no end of Canadian shooters doing the same thing in Afghanistan.

A target is a target and sometimes all that matters is bringing him/her down.

Again, had these two pillars of the community not been breaking into and looting someone's home we would not be having this discussion.

Joe Horn and people like him make the world a more dangerous place to be a criminal and people like you try to make it a safer place to be a criminal. It's too bad you don't express more indignation at the criminals for their behavior than you do at Mr. Horn for stopping them.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3964
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:13 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Sherminator333 Sherminator333:
Vigilantism is not the right way to deal with Felons. Or at least just shoot them in the legs.


Or how about this better idea: don't commit crimes.

Geez, why is it so tough for some people to grasp cause and effect?

Don't break into someones home in Texas and you won't get shot by their excitable neighbor. The better idea is to move to the UK where you can break into someone's home while they are there and then steal what you like. And if the homeowner interferes then it is the homeowner who will get the worst punishment and you, the burglar, will be entitled to 'compensation' from the nasty homeowner.

Maroons. :roll:


I don't for one minute say that U.K. is a perfect place for the victims of crime, as I have been one, but if we start taking things into our own hands, what separates us from the criminals?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19943
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:20 pm
 


The moral prohibition against shooting people in the back goes back further than just the old west.

During the American Revolution, after the Battle of Long Island, a British soldier spotted an American officer riding away on horseback. Lining up his shot, he held his fire as he would have shot him in the back. The lucky officer was Gen. Washington.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25516
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:40 pm
 


xerxes xerxes:
The moral prohibition against shooting people in the back goes back further than just the old west.

During the American Revolution, after the Battle of Long Island, a British soldier spotted an American officer riding away on horseback. Lining up his shot, he held his fire as he would have shot him in the back. The lucky officer was Gen. Washington.
Pvt. Hoobler shot a German officer on horseback as he was riding away from him in Bastogne. He got a luger off the officer, and later accidentally shot himself in the leg with it, hit the artery, and died.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18770
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:43 pm
 


tritium that pic you posted is it from the justice center in Austin?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:04 pm
 


RUEZ RUEZ:
Brenda Brenda:
What if, what if...

This is Texas. Different from the rest, obviously. They should have known. Now they do. Tough luck.
Now they're dead, and with any luck and justice a trigger happy old man will spend his last days in jail.


Yeah, well, he too should have thought about that, right?

And probably he did, knowing he was in Texas.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:04 pm
 


RUEZ RUEZ:
Brenda Brenda:
What if, what if...

This is Texas. Different from the rest, obviously. They should have known. Now they do. Tough luck.
Now they're dead, and with any luck and justice a trigger happy old man will spend his last days in jail.


Yeah, well, he too should have thought about that, right?

And probably he did, knowing he was in Texas.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:16 pm
 


Sherminator333 Sherminator333:
I don't for one minute say that U.K. is a perfect place for the victims of crime, as I have been one, but if we start taking things into our own hands, what separates us from the criminals?


There is no moral equivalency between a man defending his family and a man attacking someone else's family for personal pleasure or gain.

And, other than a badge, what is the magical difference between a subject defending themselves from a criminal and a constable defending themselves from a criminal?

Ask yourself why it is that subjects are not allowed to defend themselves from an attack while constables, MPs, and Ministers reserve to themselves the privilege to employ lethal force against anyone attacking them, breaking into THEIR homes, or etc. ?

What makes them so special? :idea:

And just as it is on topic:

$1:
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. — the Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7710
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:48 pm
 


stratos stratos:
tritium that pic you posted is it from the justice center in Austin?


It looks like it.

It's from the book The Legacy of Historical Courthouses. I love old architecture & history.

More here on Texas: http://www.martana.com/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18770
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:51 pm
 


tritium tritium:
stratos stratos:
tritium that pic you posted is it from the justice center in Austin?


It looks like it.

It's from the book The Legacy of Historical Courthouses. I love old architecture & history.

More here on Texas: http://www.martana.com/


IF it is the same place I'm thinking of the building connected to it is the Jail I used to work at. I love walking through the Capital building every now and then just looking at it and all the interestig features along with the portriats of all the Texas Governors. :D


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 476
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:13 pm
 


Ex-Expat Ex-Expat:
But in most cases, and certainly not Mr. Horn's case, I don't think the "maimy" option is there as often as you'd like to think it is.


I don't think it ever is or should be right, at least not with firearms as the option. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I said that maiming is never the right choice. A situation calls for deadly or non-deadly. If it calls for using a gun, go all out with it. Kill the bastard then and there.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 255 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 17  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.