BF2S Forums Man kills his gf and 2 other men who were in the bed with her

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

hey look at me guys I'm JohnG@lt and I have no idea what I'm talking about

Oh yeah? About what?

Well you said it was a crime of passion and that it was legal. Which wouldn't make sense at the literal level let alone if you actually looked at the crime committed.

It's not legal, you're just highly likely to get off with that defense.

But is a crime of passion a viable legal defense? Do juries actually buy the notion that a person committed serious assault or murder simply because he was enraged by jealousy? Absolutely. In fact, Texas is known as one of the states with the highest frequency of crimes of passion, as juries often sympathize with a defendant who claims to have committed a crime of passion. We can commiserate with someone who suddenly discovers that his or her spouse is involved with someone else, and can therefore justify giving the defendant a pass.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … tml?cat=17

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Lol at your government treating you like children, taking away your weapons, and leaving you helpless against anyone who wants to invade your home while making you wholly dependent on incompetent police forces.

Helpless against someone not armed with something that fires hot pieces of metal at me very very fast?
Shit if only we all had one of them to kill each other defend ourselves with.

You're missing the point. You have all demonized guns while neglecting to understand their inherent purpose. Guns level the playing field between a little white haired old lady and someone like me who is 6'3" and 250 lbs with military training.

By removing guns from the equation all you've done is allow anyone my size to become a thieving thug almost with impunity.

Your military training must be shit if you consider yourself on par with a little white haired old lady in a gun battle.

I'm Jamesey wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Helpless against someone not armed with something that fires hot pieces of metal at me very very fast?
Shit if only we all had one of them to kill each other defend ourselves with.

You're missing the point. You have all demonized guns while neglecting to understand their inherent purpose. Guns level the playing field between a little white haired old lady and someone like me who is 6'3" and 250 lbs with military training.

By removing guns from the equation all you've done is allow anyone my size to become a thieving thug almost with impunity.

Your military training must be shit if you consider yourself on par with a little white haired old lady in a gun battle.

50 years of target practice on her part?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Oh yeah? About what?

Well you said it was a crime of passion and that it was legal. Which wouldn't make sense at the literal level let alone if you actually looked at the crime committed.

It's not legal, you're just highly likely to get off with that defense.

But is a crime of passion a viable legal defense? Do juries actually buy the notion that a person committed serious assault or murder simply because he was enraged by jealousy? Absolutely. In fact, Texas is known as one of the states with the highest frequency of crimes of passion, as juries often sympathize with a defendant who claims to have committed a crime of passion. We can commiserate with someone who suddenly discovers that his or her spouse is involved with someone else, and can therefore justify giving the defendant a pass.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … tml?cat=17

I don't think any jury, let alone a southern conservative one, would find the "i came home saw them together, freaked out killed them all and dismembered their bodies" defense as reasonable.

I'm Jamesey wrote:

Oh, so now it only levels the playing field if she not only has a gun, but participates in 50 years of target practice, otherwise we're back to square one.

..

so the inherent purpose of guns is for people to spend 50 years of their valuable time practising in the chance that somebody who is 6 foot 3 with military training tries to rob them

I understand!

Your argument is a complete failure. You're nitpicking stupid details and ignoring the big picture of the situation. If I wanted a gun in a country where it's illegal I can get one. All your gun ban has done is remove guns from the hands of people who obey the law, not those who ignore it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm Jamesey wrote:

Oh, so now it only levels the playing field if she not only has a gun, but participates in 50 years of target practice, otherwise we're back to square one.

..

so the inherent purpose of guns is for people to spend 50 years of their valuable time practising in the chance that somebody who is 6 foot 3 with military training tries to rob them

I understand!

Your argument is a complete failure. You're nitpicking stupid details and ignoring the big picture of the situation. If I wanted a gun in a country where it's illegal I can get one. All your gun ban has done is remove guns from the hands of people who obey the law, not those who ignore it.

I'm yet to see an argument from you that makes sense. Stop making stupid arguments and I'll stop nitpicking them.

Create a sensible big picture already.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm Jamesey wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Your argument is a complete failure. You're nitpicking stupid details and ignoring the big picture of the situation. If I wanted a gun in a country where it's illegal I can get one. All your gun ban has done is remove guns from the hands of people who obey the law, not those who ignore it.

I'm yet to see an argument from you that makes sense. Stop making stupid arguments and I'll stop nitpicking them.

Create a sensible big picture already.

Why does a ban on firearms make your citizens safer?

The burden of painting a picture isn't on me, I don't like guns and they're banned in my country so it's all good. But I'll take a stab in the dark.

Simply because people are stupid and make rash decisions. People are more likely to fail to make a stupid decision without readily available guns.

I can't think of any other object kept in household that can provide as much danger in the hands of stupid people as a firearm.

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

I'm Jamesey wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why does a ban on firearms make your citizens safer?

The burden of painting a picture isn't on me, I don't like guns and they're banned in my country so it's all good. But I'll take a stab in the dark.

Simply because people are stupid and make rash decisions. People are more likely to fail to make a stupid decision without readily available guns.

I can't think of any other object kept in household that can provide as much danger in the hands of stupid people as a firearm.

Didn't you admit you were a lookout for an armed robbery once?

I admitted I was lookout for 2 people charged with armed robbery

I dunno if I admitted that one had a replica and the other had a starters pistol loaded with some fucking loud blanks

I'm Jamesey wrote:

I admitted I was lookout for 2 people charged with armed robbery

Scumbag, human trash, disgusting waste of sperm, oxygen thief.

Die, mother fucker, die motherfucker die.

they never even made it to the shop, they were arrested 20 feet away by CID.

I guess this proves how good gun control is in my area, therefore +1 debate points to me!

mkxiii wrote:

androoz wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

Scumbag, human trash, disgusting waste of sperm, oxygen thief.

Die, mother fucker, die motherfucker die.

lol

@jamesey, try robbing someone over here and youll get shot (thank god for freedom)

point one = would you shoot him if he tried to rob you?

point two = you thank god (who had shit all to do with it) for freedom but you shit on marine who is fighting for it??

point one = if it was actually jamesey himself, no, i would try to talk him out of it and help him.

point two = strong unaware.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why does a ban on firearms make your citizens safer?

It seems to work just fine for us over here.

I'm Jamesey wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

Jamesey wouldn't survive in America. He's get shot trying to rob someone because they cut his welfare benefits.

Then I'd fit in with a pretty large amount of americans

Most Americans aren't on Welfare. You would be a funny talking ignorant poor immigrant. You' would be less than a Mexican. At least they try toi make it.