Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Racism in Southern America..


Stouffer
 Share

Recommended Posts

It’s not the worst country in the world for abhorrent shit but for a so called super civilised western superpower it’s a fucking disgrace. I’m with one of my best mates and his wife whose from Salt Lake City right now and she’s not long said the same. Fucking yahoo gun tottin’ weirdos 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It’s not the worst country in the world for abhorrent shit but for a so called super civilised western superpower it’s a fucking disgrace. I’m with one of my best mates and his wife whose from Salt Lake City right now and she’s not long said the same. Fucking yahoo gun tottin’ weirdos 

Is she his only wife?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

I disagree, take Russia and Saudi Arabia as two examples off the top of my head. Far more fucked up add in China and many many others.

Yeah maybe, some beauty's there. Obviously China, Saudi and Russia are under a heavy thumb but as the yanks like to promote themselves as the leaders of the free world you'd hope the country would experience more widespread social harmony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I would think it was harder to invoke castle doctrine when the "intruder" is there for legitimate reasons, like picking up his children. 

Yeah, but he then announces he's going to take the gun and use it on him then actually tries to grab the gun.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I would think it was harder to invoke castle doctrine when the "intruder" is there for legitimate reasons, like picking up his children. 

He has no right to be on the property. At the very least take a knife to a gunfight.  You’ll still lose, but at least you’ve tried.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

He has no right to be on the property. At the very least take a knife to a gunfight.  You’ll still lose, but at least you’ve tried.  

I believe he does have a right to be on his property as he was picking up his Child.  Whether being asked to leave and not leaving changes anything we'll have to see. 

 

In terms of the Women talking like normal after I dare say they were in shock.  That escalated to that outcome rather quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, J-V said:

I believe he does have a right to be on his property as he was picking up his Child.  Whether being asked to leave and not leaving changes anything we'll have to see. 

 

In terms of the Women talking like normal after I dare say they were in shock.  That escalated to that outcome rather quick.

Why does picking up a child give you right to be there? The kid wasn’t even there. He was told to leave, he didn’t. The guy got his gun, he grabbed it.  The end.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Why does picking up a child give you right to be there? The kid wasn’t even there. He was told to leave, he didn’t. The guy got his gun, he grabbed it.  The end.  

He's got a custody order which stipulates he has to pick up the Child at that certain time.  You can assume he's going onto the property to collect his child as normal. Obviously the Child was not there and it escalated.  Mind he should have vacated the property once asked.

 

The fact the bloke threatend to take the gun from the other gent and use it on his multiple times, moved the gun once, then tried to grab the gun whilst throwng the other gent you'd expect the shooter to get off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, J-V said:

He's got a custody order which stipulates he has to pick up the Child at that certain time.  You can assume he's going onto the property to collect his child as normal. Obviously the Child was not there and it escalated.

 

The fact the bloke threatend to take the gun from the other gent and use it on his multiple times, moved the gun once, then tried to grab the gun whilst throwng the other gent you'd expect the shooter to get off.

But an order to have custody wouldn’t give you a right to enter the property. He could have sat in the car with the person filming.  I’m not condoning what happened, anyone having a gun who isn’t a copper or soldier is mental but he played that just about as badly as a person could.  The minute the gun arrived he should have fucked right off. 
 

Edit: because if it did the order would be produced by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

But an order to have custody wouldn’t give you a right to enter the property. He could have sat in the car with the person filming.  I’m not condoning what happened, anyone having a gun who isn’t a copper or soldier is mental but he played that just about as badly as a person could.  The minute the gun arrived he should have fucked right off. 
 

Edit: because if it did the order would be produced by now. 

He was on his property not going into it. Yes, the court order (if there is one I've heard there was) would give him the right to be on his property up till he was asked to leave. He should have fucked off as soon as asked to leave but like anything even in this Country bravado takes over.  The only difference someone legally got a gun out instead of pulling a knife...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, J-V said:

He was on his property not going into it. Yes, the court order (if there is one I've heard there was) would give him the right to be on his property up till he was asked to leave. He should have fucked off as soon as asked to leave but like anything even in this Country bravado takes over.  The only difference someone legally got a gun out instead of pulling a knife...

Let’s turn this on it’s head.  Why are you convinced any custody order would give him a right to access someone else’s property? What exactly are you basing this on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Let’s turn this on it’s head.  Why are you convinced any custody order would give him a right to access someone else’s property? What exactly are you basing this on. 

Lets not. 

 

He's allowed onto his property (not in his house) until asked to leave.  He didn't leave, got aggresive and was shot the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...