*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[oskar]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rce=reddit.com

Are democrats mexicans?

[Savy]

I'm sorry what I said was interpreted as a threat of physical violence. I'm sure no one really took it as that but I appreciate why a website can't condone threats of physical violence, no matter how weak and pathetic, as standard.

Feel free to copy and paste this into any of your near future posts BS.

[BananaStand]

I'm sorry.....

nope

[OngBonga]

There's no rule that says you have to say sorry, and if there's one thing worse than not saying sorry about something it's saying you're sorry when you're not. He broke a rule, got told, end of story.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck if he's sorry or not. banana and oskar are never going to meet, I doubt very much that oskar feels intimidated by such comments, and I doubt very much that banana intended to intimidate oskar. It's just the line has to be drawn somewhere, there has to be a point where mods are in agreement as to what we can and can't let slide.

[MadMojoMonkey]

FWIW, BananaStand is an ethnocentrist, not a racist, IMO.

I don't think the assessment that he's racist holds up to any of his assertions, and I can understand why he's upset at the accusation.

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to adopt his culture, that's the line he's drawn. If it happens to correspond to skin color, then that's a coincidence. He doesn't want Mexicans crossing the border. Mexican is not a race; Mexicans are all races. The majority of them are brown, but plenty are white or black, too.

[BananaStand]

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to adopt his culture, that's the line he's drawn

I don't know how you're concluding this. What do you mean by culture? What do you mean by "adopt"?

I support an immigration policy based on merit. And I'm not advocating for unattainable standards of merit either. Do you have job prospects? Are you a criminal? That's really all I care about. The only culture-related requirement I might suggest is that they speak english. And that's really more about practical functionality of our economic, academic, and political systems. But I think that's a pretty long way from ethnocentrism.

Where I've drawn the line, is between what I perceive to be fair, and unfair.

For example I mentioned language. If everyone speaks the same language, then everyone has the same access to information, the same access to education, etc. That's fair.

When a large population of people refuses to speak english, and essentially demands that our system provide bi-lingual access, at the system's cost, then that's unfair.

If there are people working "under the table" because they're undocumented...that's unfair

If those same people expect free education and medicaid for their children born here, that's unfair.

I believe Oskar's policy of coddling brown families at the Mexican border, while happily punting a white baby back over the Canadian border is unfair. I think babies of all colors should get punted back to the social services departments in their home countries. That's fair, no?

If immigrants travelling with children are given a free pass while those travelling alone are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...that's unfair.

I'm not sure what the number might be, but America does have a capacity for new immigrants. It is something that they at least try to control. I'm sure there are plenty of folks abroad just aching to get into America that are being delayed or denied access. Giving preferential treatment to immigrants at the Mexican border, merely due to physical proximity, is unfair.

One thing I do have a problem with, is business that close for things like Chinese New Year, or Cinco de Mayo. Maybe you could call that ethnocentrism, but I actually think it's something else. I find it kind of insulting really. Like, if Mexican Independence Day makes you feel patriotic enough to blow off work, why the fuck did you leave Mexico in the first place? We already have an independence day in America. It's when we celebrate the freedom that allows an immigrant to live, think, and work peacefully in the most prosperous nation on earth. No love for that though....it's just party-it-up on May 5th.

That probably sounds ethnocentric, but to me its not.

Let's say you're at someone's house for dinner. They serve ham. And you show up and say "nah, I actually don't like ham, but I've got a pizza coming, so I'll stay anyway". To me, that's called being a dick. Either eat the fucking ham, or don't come over. Not liking people who are dicks is not the same as ethnocentrism.

[OngBonga]

It's not like ordering pizza at some guy's dinner party. More like a few of the boys sneaking outside for a spliff, then coming back expecting another glass of wine.

[OngBonga]

Yeah not agreeing with you on the last bit banana. If I came to live in USA, and England vs USA is a World Cup match, sorry bro but I'm supporting England. I'd celebrate July 4th with you all, but I'm not going to ignore my roots.

You can't expect Mexican immigrants to not celebrate whatever Mexico celebrates.

[BananaStand]

youre full of shit ong. If i paraded through London dressed in stars and stripes and set off fireworks on July 4th you would rightly call me a cunt

[OngBonga]

youre full of shit ong. If i paraded through London dressed in stars and stripes and set off fireworks on July 4th you would rightly call me a cunt

Well probably, but only because that independance you're celebrating is from us. Historical butthurt, you ungrateful traitors.

Seriously though I wouldn't give a fuck. I like fireworks. I suppose if a fuck ton of Americans took over my town in celebration, yeah that would annoy me. But an American who lives in England, celebrating July 4th? I'd have a beer with you rather than call you a cunt.

[BananaStand]

It's not like ordering pizza at some guy's dinner party. More like a few of the boys sneaking outside for a spliff, then coming back expecting another glass of wine.

I dont care what you smoke on your own, but if youre going to be sharing, roll a proper joint.

Sharing a spliff sounds so inadequately intoxicating I wouldn't feel bad demanding more wine

[OngBonga]

I dont care what you smoke on your own, but if youre going to be sharing, roll a proper joint.

Sharing a spliff sounds so inadequately intoxicating I wouldn't feel bad demanding more wine

It'll be two spliffs at least. Probably three. I'm not smoking quarter of a spliff or whatever and then going back inside. And if I'm determined to get baked, a seasoned fucking pro, then we're all getting baked.

[BananaStand]

Here's what I'm talking about.

In my family, our Christmas Eve tradition is to have a massive lobster & shrimp feast. One year, when I was married, I hosted one such celebration. My wife's family was in town, and even though they were Jewish, they came too. My ex mother in law has a very old and very close friend that lives locally. This person is also Jewish, but since she was alone for the holidays, we invited her too.

I'm only mentioning the jewish-ness as evidence of NON-ethnocentrism. If I am the person MMM described then I wouldn't welcome jews to a christmas celebration unless they tore up their yarmulkes and got baptized first.

Now this friend of the family is a generally nice person, but is absolutely bat-shit crazy when it comes to compassion for animals. She sees her own house as a de facto cat orphanage (she had over 25 at one time). She literally will not kill a fly. She'll trap it with a paper cup, slide an index card underneath, and then take it outside and set it free. (It's fucking hilarious when the fly just zips right back inside ha ha ha). She would kidnap your dog if she thought for a minute that the animal was abused, neglected, or somehow kept in less than optimal conditions.

I'm not kidding. She's been arrested for exactly that more than once.

So anyway, this cunt accepts the invitation, but relays a message that she strongly insists that we not serve lobsters, citing the inhumanity of putting a live animal face first into boiling water.

My response was [paraphrased] "Fuck off, don't come"

Is that ethnocentrism?

[OngBonga]

I am of the opinion that plants are people too, except they can't evade predators. It's more curel to eat lettuce than it is to put a lobster in boiling water. The lobster has more of a chance than the lettuce.

I'd agree not to serve lobster at a dinner party she was invited to if she promised to return the favour by hosting a barbecue with just meat, bread, cheese and non-vegetable based sauces.

Then I'd tell her she makes a shit cup of tea and refuse to drink it, instead going to the kettle and making myself one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Then I'd tell her she makes a shit cup of tea and refuse to drink it

I'm not an expert on British culture, but isn't that treason?

[wufwugy]

I'm not an expert on British culture, but isn't that treason?

Refusing to drink tea, or making a shit cup of it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Refusing to drink tea, or making a shit cup of it?

I was originally thinking the former when I posted it, but ong took it another way, and I dropped it.

They take their tea seriously, is all I know about it. I presume that refusing tea is a personal affront to queen and country, regardless of the quality of said tea.
They probably whack you with a billy club and tell you to be civilized or something for shit like that.

Presumably, there would be some formal softening of the 'brewing a shit cup of tea' laws that came about during rationing when the entire nation was eating boiled shoes and rat balls, but they still had to have their tea. So telling someone they're brewing a shit cup of tea is probably just a formal statement precluding a full investigation into the tea quality by the national Tea Potability Board or something.

They have a secretary of tea, right? No, no, it'd be a lord of tea, yeah? 'Cause parliament.

I'd presume that if a husband said his wife brewed a shit cup of tea, that'd be grounds for divorce in his favor. However, refusing to drink the tea she made, regardless of quality is probably grounds for divorce in her favor.

[wufwugy]

I was originally thinking the former when I posted it, but ong took it another way, and I dropped it.

They take their tea seriously, is all I know about it. I presume that refusing tea is a personal affront to queen and country, regardless of the quality of said tea.
They probably whack you with a billy club and tell you to be civilized or something for shit like that.

Presumably, there would be some formal softening of the 'brewing a shit cup of tea' laws that came about during rationing when the entire nation was eating boiled shoes and rat balls, but they still had to have their tea. So telling someone they're brewing a shit cup of tea is probably just a formal statement precluding a full investigation into the tea quality by the national Tea Potability Board or something.

They have a secretary of tea, right? No, no, it'd be a lord of tea, yeah? 'Cause parliament.

I'd presume that if a husband said his wife brewed a shit cup of tea, that'd be grounds for divorce in his favor. However, refusing to drink the tea she made, regardless of quality is probably grounds for divorce in her favor.

Oi mate, ya 'avin' a laugh a' the redcoats? Where'd ya get your "'avin' a laugh" loicense?

[OngBonga]

Not at all. In fact, making a shit cup of tea is grounds for divorce.

The pussy thing to do is put the shit cup of tea down and "forget" about it until it's too cold to drink. That's basically a polite way of saying "you make shit tea", while causing minimal butthurt. But I respect a person who is not afraid to offend when it comes to getting a proper cup of tea.

Every fucker who ever made me tea knows not to put too much milk in. I will just say "thanks but no thanks" and make myself another.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...lex-jones.html

Lots of news sources picking up this story. The coordination is concerning. Also seems odd how they go out of their way to say that this is not some kind of action against "fake news" or any kind of impugning of the accuracy of Jones' reporting. They all make vague references to some kind of hate-speech, or violence inducing speech. Yet no one actually describes what that was. Not even a paraphrased quote.

[oskar]

Not sure what you're doing. Took me literally <10s to find.

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/alex-j...-a-wall-video/

[BananaStand]

Not sure what you're doing. Took me literally <10s to find.

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/alex-j...-a-wall-video/

I already knew about that. It's cited in all the stories about his banning. I was looking for something more.

That segment only appeared on one of the platforms from which he was banned. That doesn't explain the widespread coordination.

Furthermore, that segment doesn't seem to me to violate any terms of service. He didn't threaten violence other than with some hand gesture that can be interpreted any of 1000 other ways. The words he used CLEARLY show that his rant was metaphorical. He specifies that he will be doing all these things "politically" multiple times. Where is the threat of violence?

[BananaStand]

So I shouldn't be worried about this InfoWars thing being a slippery slope huh.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...nds-on-it.html

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it,

Here's the problem with censoring "hate and lies"...

Who defines "Hate and Lies"

I can guarantee that it WON'T be who you want it to be

[OngBonga]

Making a shit cup of tea isn't treason... it's just a good enough reason to hate someone.

[Poopadoop]

Making a shit cup of tea isn't treason... it's just a good enough reason to hate someone.

How do you mess up tea? Heat up water, steep your leaves, serve with milk and/or sugar to the person's tastes.

[OngBonga]

How do you mess up tea?

Too much milk, not brewing the tea bag for long enough, overbrewing, putting cold milk onto a teabag before any hot water goes in, not using hot enough water, using bad milk, using the wrong type of milk, putting the sugar in after the water has cooled a little too much, or using inferior quality teabags. I probably missed a ton of other ways to fuck up a cup of tea, it's definitely possible. Sometimes even I do it. I look at the finished product, pull a face, tip it down the sink, make another. It's rare but it happens.

[Savy]

How do you mess up tea? Heat up water, steep your leaves, serve with milk and/or sugar to the person's tastes.

So many ways.

Also 5/1 on Ong making semi-regular shit cups of tea because so many of those things matter about 1%

[OngBonga]

How much milk? That question has only a few possible answers, and none of them are an accurate measurement. If someone replied "25ml" to me I'd assume they were a sarcastic twat.

a tiny bit - still dark, just enough milk to take the bitterness away
not much - a bit more than above, enough to turn the colour a little lighter while keeping the tea strong
normal - not too milky, but not too dark either, in the middle
milky - normal with an extra splash
really milky - ratio of around 1:3, for morons who don't like tea but do like warm milky water

[BananaStand]

Tea is gross.

coffee too for that matter

all of it

[OngBonga]

I only make "shit" tea for people if I don't know them well enough to know how they like their tea. But I always ask, like... how much milk? That's a very important question that I am not asked enough when someone is making me tea for the first time.

Actually I make shit tea if you like it really milky, because I just can't bring myself to put lots of milk in. No matter how much I try to put it, it's never enough. But fuck people who like really milky tea. These people don't deserve to breathe the same air as me.

[BananaStand]

how much milk? That's a very important question that I am not asked enough when someone is making me tea for the first time.

When taking food orders, you mustn't forget to ask the important questions.

I asked the cunt who brings the food for a Caesar Salad with steak tips.

Cunt asked me what kind of dressing I would like.....on my caesar salad

Dumb cunt forgot to ask how I wanted my tips cooked.

WTF?

[OngBonga]

I would have to ask "what the fuck are steak tips"? When you politely inform me that they are chunks of actual steak (I googled), well even to me it's fairly obvious that the next question should be along the same lines as the question you'd ask when someone orders normal steak.

I mean, it should be a reflex.

[BananaStand]

what the what?? They don't have steak-tips in britain? Or are they just called something gay instead?

Actually, now that I'm thinking of it..."steak tips" sounds really gay.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm sure one look at him told her he takes his meat bloody-rare.
In fact, he'd probably prefer raw meat at room temperature, 'cause cooked meat is for wussies.

[Poopadoop]

I'm sure one look at him told her he takes his meat bloody-rare.
In fact, he'd probably prefer raw meat at room temperature, 'cause cooked meat is for wussies.

Haha.

Must be great fun going through life being pissed off all day every day. "What!?? Goddamn waitress forgot to ask me how i like my steak tips cooked???? Aaaaarrgggh!"

[BananaStand]

"What!?? Goddamn waitress forgot to ask me how i like my steak tips cooked???? Aaaaarrgggh!"

You've obviously never had steak tips.

[OngBonga]

I think we just call them steak chunks? Steak bites? I dunno, maybe I'm just stupid and we have steak tips.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...tcmp=obnetwork

He groused about how the women often drink too much and cause a scene.

"Half of them end up crying about something," he said.

Bitchez is crazy

[BananaStand]

So they arrested that guy in florida who shot a dude over a parking space. He was originally released under Florida's "stand your ground law".

There was an argument about a car parked in a handicapped space. When the driver came out, he rushed the guy arguing with his girlfriend, and shoved him to the ground. All he was doing was saying "you can't park here". And the driver decided "you can't tell my girlfriend what do do, so now I'm gonna hurt you".

So he pushed the guy to the ground. Then the guy on the ground, fearing additional beatdown, pulls out a gun and shoots the assailant in the chest.

If he shot a white guy. We wouldn't have a problem. But the guy was black, so apparently he should be allowed to shove and beat whoever he likes, for whatever reason he likes.

This might sound familiar. It is. A few years ago, some neighborhood watch guy was following up on some suspicious activity. Teh suspicious character jumped the guy and started a fight. Neighborhood watch guy pulls out a gun and shoots the suspicious character.

Same thing happened. Because the guy who got shot was black...the shooter got arrested for defending himself.

Is it suspicious to anyone else that both shooting victims have the same lawyer.....and both times the shooter was arrested even though "stand your ground" clearly applies?

[oskar]

He shot a guy who had his hands up and was backing away. That's why this is a story. Not because of the negro-loving fake news media.

For someone who is agressively insisting that he's not a racist retard, you sure say a lot of retarded racist shit.

[BananaStand]

He shot a guy who had his hands up and was backing away.

Objection. Assumes facts non in evidence.

[oskar]

Objection. Assumes facts non in evidence.

Did you just have a stroke?

You somehow manage to turn an incident where a white civilian shot and killed an unarmed black man who was clearly backing away, and got off without any charges into a case for racism against white people. Are you alright, buddy?

[BananaStand]

Did you just have a stroke?

No. I'm just not deranged.

You somehow manage to turn an incident where a white civilian shot and killed an unarmed black man who was clearly backing away,

Clearly??? Where are you getting this? Why do you get to just make up your own facts. I watched the video a dozen times. I saw the guy take one step backwards after the guy was already in the process of pulling out his gun to fire. The whole thing took a split second.

You're out of your gourd if you expect a guy who was just beaten to the ground, to have the presence of mind to be able to tell if his assailant is sufficiently deterred merely by the sight of a gun...within a split second. You seem to have this retarded racist idea that gun-toting white people are all reckless hillbillies that like to indiscriminately flap a trigger finger while yelling yeeeeehaaaw.

In reality, the overwhelming massive majority of gun owners are responsible people that have been trained in gun safety protocols and understand them. If you were one of those people, you would know that a gun is not for intimidation. It's not to brandished. If you pull it out, it's because you are going to shoot somebody. If you pull the gun out, it's because you've already decided that your life is being threatened and you need to respond with force.

That all happened before the black guy ever thought about taking a step backwards. If you expect a guy who was just hit by someone twice his size, and is on the ground, and is in panicked fear for his life, to then make a hair-splitting nuanced interpretation of a single step, then you're an ignorant douchebag.

And even if he was backing away. How do we know he wasn't moving toward his car to get his own gun? If you're the one on the ground after being attacked...are you really gonna take that chance? He's attacked you...you've threatened him with a gun....now you're gonna just wait for his next move? That would be stupid. Bigtime stupid.

I'll lay 50 to 1 right now, on any wager you wanna make that this guy gets off.

a case for racism against white people. Are you alright, buddy?

Are you alright? Because you seem to be conflating me with the alt-right hate machine that likes to scream about oppression against whites.

I've never claimed that white people were a victim of anything here. Not a single word of that. Did you have a stroke? If not, then why do you think I'm making claims of anti-white racism?

My claim is that any feeling of victimization by black people is completely erroneous and that it was artificially manufactured by opportunistic activists with a profit motive. I object to that as a person of intelligence and respect for the law. My whiteness is not offended in any way.

[oskar]

So even though there were no charges; the mere fact there are even people who would object to this being a completely justified use of deadly force, is evidence for organized racism against white people?

[BananaStand]

So even though there were no charges; the mere fact there are even people who would object to this being a completely justified use of deadly force, is evidence for organized racism against white people?

WHO is making this claim????

Shove your strawmen up your ass buddy.

[Poopadoop]

Wait, wat? This video?



Forget what colour these two guys are for a minute. Since when does getting pushed to the ground give you the right to kill someone?

Edit: I mean what a fucking pussy. Picks a fight with a woman, then when someone bigger than him pushes him down, he goes all Rambo on the guy. Fuck anyone who thinks his actions are defensible.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Once he brandishes the weapon, the standing guy starts backing away.
There's no ground to stand at that point.

Shooting a person whom is backing away from you and not brandishing any weapon at all is fucking cold-blooded murder.
If you can't see that, then wtf is wrong with you?

[BananaStand]

Once he brandishes the weapon, the standing guy starts backing away.
There's no ground to stand at that point.

Shooting a person whom is backing away from you and not brandishing any weapon at all is fucking cold-blooded murder.
If you can't see that, then wtf is wrong with you?

Fuck you in face if you think you can truly sit in judgement of this incident and condemn a man who was attacked for nothing more than advocating for the handicapped.

The idea that the guy was backing away, AND THEN got shot is not definitively shown on the video. Not by a long shot.

And you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about because you used the word "brandish". That's not a reasonable function for a firearm. Anyone who thinks it's ok "brandish" a firearm as a means of protection or safety is wholly retarded. If the gun comes out...it's killing someone.

That decision was made. Fear was felt. Life was threatened. Gun was pulled out. The commitment to fire was made.

AND THEN the assailant took a step back. He was already dead at that point.

Expecting a panic stricken person to reverse course, from the ground, after being assaulted, while fearing for his life, in a fraction of a second, is crazy. That's not a reasonable expectation of human behavior.

[BananaStand]

For someone who is agressively insisting that he's not a racist retard, you sure say a lot of retarded racist shit.

Rather than respect your intelligence and try to discuss this you in a way that leads us both to a factual conclusion.....I'm just gonna spell this out for your low-IQ brain.

Benjamin Crump and Al Sharpton make millions of dollars convincing black people that they've been oppressed by white people. That is the entirety of their profession. They stir up controversy and make money. They don't give a fuck who got shot, why they got shot, or whether or not their hands were up when they got shot. They are unwaveringly committed to a single interpretation of events which just so happens to be the interpretation of events that gets them the most publicity and money. That's not a coincidence.

There are 350 million people in America. If these incidents were really indicative of underlying racism throughout society, then it seems wildly unlikely that it would only ever be noticed by the same two guys.

[Poopadoop]

I heard the ACLU's only reason for existing is to convince people their rights are being infringed on (like you know when parents and children are separated at the border) despite the overwhelming evidence everything is hunky dory.

[BananaStand]

I heard the ACLU's only reason for existing is to convince people their rights are being infringed on (like you know when parents and children are separated at the border) despite the overwhelming evidence everything is hunky dory.

Subtract the parenthetical and the sarcastic tone...and this is a really good post.

[oskar]

You seem to have this retarded racist idea that gun-toting white people are all reckless hillbillies that like to indiscriminately flap a trigger finger while yelling yeeeeehaaaw.

I would say this is highly accurate.



How for one thing: if you carry, you don't get into fucking retarded arguments over parking spaces that are none of your business? This guy was looking for a fight, he got it, and he got his heroic fantasy play out.

[BananaStand]

How for one thing: if you carry, you don't get into fucking retarded arguments over parking spaces that are none of your business? This guy was looking for a fight, he got it, and he got his heroic fantasy play out.

I gotta know how you can be thousands of miles away from a person, never have met them before, yet can definitively interpret the motivations of split second actions caught on grainy camera footage. And you can do that by accurately inferring deep and detailed insight about their personal fantasies.

Please tell me how you can read minds so well that you can conclude, definitively, that his advocating on behalf of the handicapped was all a ruse designed to distract us from his deep seated racist hero fantasies

How'd you get so fucking smart bro?

[BananaStand]

I know that because it's on record.

Source?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your assertion that being arrested is somehow a violation of anyone's rights is absurd.
Especially when the person being arrested has just discharged a firearm in public.
(Police harassment is a thing, but not as pertains to this story.)

Being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty of anything. It means a police officer has probable cause to think that a criminal investigation is warranted.
It is up to a judge and/or jury to decide if a law was broken, not the police.

[BananaStand]

Your assertion that being arrested is somehow a violation of anyone's rights is absurd......

This is completely wrong. Totally ignorant of facts at hand.

What you've just described there is NOT the law in Florida. The law in Florida grants a person the right to stand their ground. Being arrested for asserting that right IS a violation of rights.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is completely wrong. Totally ignorant of facts at hand.

What you've just described there is NOT the law in Florida. The law in Florida grants a person the right to stand their ground. Being arrested for asserting that right IS a violation of rights.

If you can't even understand that an arrest is not a conviction, then why did you even start a conversation about jurisprudence?

EDIT: Florida police have every right to arrest you for suspicion of anything. They DO NOT get to be judge and jury and decide whether or not the stand your ground laws apply. That's other people's jobs.

[BananaStand]

EDIT: Florida police have every right to arrest you for suspicion of anything.

No

[BananaStand]

If you can't even understand that an arrest is not a conviction,.

Stop moving the goalpost. Your original statement was that "arrest does not equal a violation of rights". That's just wrong.

[oskar]

I deleted it because I meant the parking dispute was on record. I could count on the fingers of one hand how many times I got into a dispute over a parking space if you chopped that hand off, beacuse it's zero. This is not something a sane person does. Certainly not when you conceal carry. Why would you go out of your way to seek confrontation - especially when you carry a weapon.

[BananaStand]

I deleted it because I meant the parking dispute was on record. I could count on the fingers of one hand how many times I got into a dispute over a parking space if you chopped that hand off, beacuse it's zero. This is not something a sane person does. Certainly not when you conceal carry. Why would you go out of your way to seek confrontation - especially when you carry a weapon.

They weren't fighting over the parking space. That's a demagogue-ish attempt to misrepresent the motivation for the dispute.

[oskar]

They weren't fighting over the parking space. That's a demagogue-ish attempt to misrepresent the motivation for the dispute.

[oskar]

[Poopadoop]

What kind of a loser panics and fears for his life when someone shoves him to the ground? I guess the same kind who goes around picking fights with women over parking spaces.

Also, interesting that the decisions to pull out the gun, aim it, and shoot to kill have no separation in your mind. Like once you decide to pull the gun you're committed to shooting whoever is in front of you. Fucking retarded lol.

[BananaStand]

Also, interesting that the decisions to pull out the gun, aim it, and shoot to kill have no separation in your mind. Like once you decide to pull the gun you're committed to shooting whoever is in front of you. Fucking retarded lol.

Actually it's not retarded. Find me one gun safety expert that says it's retarded.

What's retarded is pulling a gun out and not using it. That's retarded. Either keep it holstered, or shoot to kill. There is no middle option.

[Poopadoop]

Actually it's not retarded. Find me one gun safety expert that says it's retarded.

What's retarded is pulling a gun out and not using it. That's retarded. Either keep it holstered, or shoot to kill. There is no middle option.

They generally say you shouldn't brandish a gun if you don't intend to you use it. They don't say if the threat is backing away and clearly unarmed you still have to shoot him or you're a bad CCW owner. I guess they assume you don't need the obvious explained to you. But obviously they forget some people are retards who can't think for themselves.

[BananaStand]

if the threat is backing away and clearly unarmed

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

The mere fact that you claim it was CLEAR that the man was unarmed shows how retarded you are.

Can you give me the timestamp for the part of the video where the assailant is patted down and searched for weapons? I must have missed that part.

[Poopadoop]

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

The mere fact that you claim it was CLEAR that the man was unarmed shows how retarded you are.

Can you give me the timestamp for the part of the video where the assailant is patted down and searched for weapons? I must have missed that part.

You can't just assume everyone is armed and a threat to your life until you have proof otherwise. If that were true, you could just assume anyone walking down the street was a threat to you and thus you were justified in killing them.

Show me the evidence that the victim WAS armed. His hands were empty and at his side. He was backing away, not reaching into his pocket or waistband. So, unless he had a James Bond weapon he could fire using his dick, he was no threat to that guy. None. Zero. Pussy shot an unarmed man.

[BananaStand]

So getting back to the original question...I guess everyone here is convinced that it's a totally normal coincidence that the victim here, and Trayvon Martin, had the same lawyer?

[Poopadoop]

But let's assume for a minute the guy on the ground has no choice once he pulls the gun but to aim it and shoot the guy through the heart. Let's say there's no option for him, once he decides to draw his weapon, to stop and think about what he's actually doing and whether it's a proportionate response to the threat, how it will impact other people besides the person he kills, and how long he could go to jail for.

The question then becomes does he have a right to kill someone for pushing him to the ground? The answer is still 'no, he's a fucking triggered snowflake pussy'.

[BananaStand]

The question then becomes does he have a right to kill someone for pushing him to the ground? The answer is still 'no, he's a fucking triggered snowflake pussy'.

See post 1558 that i just made. You're massively misinformed. He absolutely does have that right. Get that? Read it again. He has the right to decide if his life was in danger, and you don't get to sit in judgement of him just because you have the benefit of slow motion video replay.

If you have a problem with that, then advocate for legislative change. Prosecuting this guy because he shot a black dude, and Al Sharpton cried enough, is flat out WRONG.

[BananaStand]

All I'm gleaning from this retardedness is that you have no clue about the law, can't recognize profit-motivated demagoguery, are completely ignorant about gun safety, and have oral sex fantasies about Borat.

[oskar]

[BananaStand]

Try to fall down some stairs kid.

[BananaStand]

@MMM and anyone else who wants to think rationally for two seconds...

If you find this incident distasteful, fine. Your problem is not with the shooter. Your problem is with the "Stand your Ground" law that grants him wide latitude to subjectively decide when his life is danger. If that's your problem, then complain and act accordingly.

If you want to bring about legislative change...there are ways to go about that. Prosecuting this guy won't help your cause.