Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 115
Date Signed Up:3/29/2012
Last Login:6/09/2015
Content Thumbs: 2556 total,  2922 ,  366
Comment Thumbs: 6124 total,  7461 ,  1337
Content Level Progress: 18% (18/100)
Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 125 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 47% (47/100)
Level 251 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 252 Comments: Contaminated Win
Content Views:122021
Times Content Favorited:84 times
Total Comments Made:1475
FJ Points:6574
Vacationing in the Hundred-Acre-Wood
*was winniethepedo

latest user's comments

#2 - Picture 03/17/2015 on Majestic bird 0
#3 - Picture 03/17/2015 on Ghetto is Life +13
#4 - Texas: Deadly Force In Defense Of Personal Property. Stand…  [+] (10 replies) 03/17/2015 on Texas passes open carry! +25
#136 - newzalaman (03/17/2015) [-]
I don't understand. Is this supposed to be a good thing?
#327 - gangbangtime (03/17/2015) [-]
Yes and no.
On the one hand, criminals and/or they're families can't sue you for shooting their ass when they tried to break into your home and cut your throat and steal your shit.
On the other hand, shit like escorts getting shot and people getting away with it happen.
#338 - newzalaman (03/17/2015) [-]
But that's not the only issue here. Every civilized criminal law I've heard of obviously gives the owner of a particular right the possibility to protect that right by force if necessary. But again, every civilized criminal law looks for the right you're trying to protect and the right that you damage to be proportionnate. Doesn't have to be equal, but has to be reasonable. For example, you can shoot your raper. You are exchanging your sexual immunity with the other persons life. You can beat a thief. You are exchanging your right of property with the other guys right for bodily integrity. You can shoot a thief to death if he's like, in your bedroom. Even if he isn't posing any threat to you, you have reasonable belief that he does. These are unanimously accepted trades in the matter of self protection. But shooting a guy dead for stealing copperwire? Or your garden gnome? That is clearly unproportionate mate. You have to be a really trigger happy hillbilly to let that happen. But hey, It's Texas I guess.
#343 - gangbangtime (03/17/2015) [-]
I was just stating that it's why it's neither really good or bad. It can be used for injustice and justice, and it's also why texas is supposedly the most gun-friendly state ever.

Then again, it's up to the owner, and given his actions, he should be punished if he acted in haste and when there was no threat and he could perceive it.
If I saw someone stealing something off of my yard, I'd tell him to lay down and not move or I'd shoot. If I can't see him clearly, I would shoot because he could have a weapon. if I can, and he's obviously not a threat, I wouldn't, because unless he stole something ridiculously valuable, It'd never be worth it. and even then, I'd rather not shoot.
But then again, I don't know of any stories where somebody got shot over a lawn gnome.
#352 - newzalaman (03/17/2015) [-]
I gave it as an example. I'm not familier with US criminal justice system in state level. But the way the other guy described it made it seem like it was possible. I don't know mate. Texans probably thought this thing through before legalizing it. They put measures like "reasonably thinking it can not be retrieved by other means". Which still doesn't make sense cause as long as you are able to catch the thief and put him/her on trial, you will at least be compensated for the damage. Who is he that you can't catch him? Bin Ladin? . But these are very subjective, and hard to define the outlines. They will need really good judges, and even if they do, theoretically the defendant will have to benefit from doubt. So some psychos will walk free. Hence the escort shooting incidents.
#358 - gangbangtime (03/18/2015) [-]
>compensated for damage

But seriously, it's bad and good, and a little too extreme. BUT, sometimes the laws work against those in the right. In canada, a guy got sued because a criminal tripped inside his home that he broke into and hurt himself. The criminal won.
#383 - newzalaman (03/18/2015) [-]
I meant they would make the thief pay the damage right? RIGHT?

PS: Canada thing. That's not bad law, that's just bad legal practice. But I see your point.
#443 - gangbangtime (03/18/2015) [-]
Actually, the canada thing was law. It is law. It's happened quite commonly. And the judges don't give a shit. And if the thief broke your windows, smashed your lock, fucked up your car and killed your pets? Nope, your problem m80, so long as he gets a good decent Human lawyer.
#339 - gangbangtime (03/17/2015) [-]
I hate your text.
#341 - newzalaman (03/17/2015) [-]
Yeah sorry about that. Mistakes were made : (
#1 - Picture  [+] (1 reply) 03/17/2015 on B) +5
User avatar
#6 - tbagbandit (03/17/2015) [-]
#7 - Let me also say: Not ALL the movies including this character w…  [+] (2 replies) 03/16/2015 on Hugh Jass +23
User avatar
#189 - jamiemsm (03/16/2015) [-]
what really sucked was the one where he went to japan. it just developed to slow
User avatar
#172 - toensix (03/16/2015) [-]
Origins is a terrible x-men film. But it's pretty entertaining in an 80's-action-flick sort of way.