Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Slightly heartened... (Score 1) 14

by damn_registrars (#47549393) Attached to: Shot in the back, in self-defense

Charging her accomplice with felony murder is pretty clear cut (depending on how the statute is written). Death occurs during the commission of a felony.

It does appear that the law was written that way. I don't know that I agree with it, but it needs to be applied as written ... unless, of course it involves someone claiming self-defense in a shooting then the law goes out the window because "justice".

The old man... It is going to take a little time. His advanced years would tend towards going to violent defense sooner rather than later. It does seem like a questionable shoot.

I expect the case will fall off the radar soon. Usually these kinds of shootings don't hold media attention for long. Just like all the innocent young kids who die as a direct result of careless gun owners in this country.

So, any thoughts about the doctor who capped his patient last week?

Are you referring to the case in Philly where the psychiatrist shot the guy who was trying to shoot up the office? I expect we'll see the NRA celebrate that one for a while, until (if) we figure out why the shooter was shooting the place up. We'll probably then find out that the shooter wouldn't have managed to get off many (if any) additional shots of significance and then the whole story will slowly fade away.

Comment: Re:Unknown (Score 1) 14

by damn_registrars (#47549333) Attached to: Shot in the back, in self-defense

The guy was eighty years old, the young people attacked and robbed him in his own house and had done so before. If he shot her before they left, it was certainly justified. If it was indeed in the alley he should certainly face murder charges. As the article says, that hasn't been determined. Personally, I'm going to withhold judgement.

It involved a gun. DR is going to assume the worst.

I didn't realize I was personally connected to this. In another comment here I did offer a link to another news article on it that supports the notion that the old man did chase them out and shoot the woman in the back in they alley. Unless you want to assume that the 80 year old man - who supposedly had a broken collarbone from the incident - shot her in his house, and then dragged her body out into the alley to make some sort of point.

Comment: Re:"Are you doing this just to waste. . ." (Score 1) 17

by damn_registrars (#47549285) Attached to: niwdoG
I have accepted some time ago that you no longer want to read my comments (yet for some reason you reply to them anyways). I never claimed there previously to be a victim here; I only asked why you put so much energy into wasting other peoples' time. If ever there was a victim of this discussion though I would argue it to be you, not me, as you seem blissfully unaware of how absurd you make your own arguments and tactics look.

Comment: Re:What's your point? (Score 1) 16

by damn_registrars (#47549253) Attached to: Practical socialism

Less snarkily, leadership, in general, is not about finger-pointing.

Believe it or not, there is plenty of finger pointing coming from both parties in DC. Your party is not by any means above it.

Indeed, that was my point, though the GOP is no more "my" party than the Dhimmicrats are yours.

No. The GOP is certainly your party more than the current leaders of the democratic party are representative of mine. And your clever re-spelling is further indication that you don't actually want to discuss this.

Seriously: it's all fiat money

This is the first time I have ever seen you raise the "fiat money" strawman in discussion. If you seriously want to discuss that - and didn't just offer it up in desperation - then I ask you one simple question - where on earth can you find an example of non-fiat money that is in common use and has an agreed-upon value? There is no demonstrated case of how it would actually improve things to move the US Dollar from fiat to non-fiat.

Question stands: WHY NOT just make us all millionaires?

Nobody who actually favors entitlement reform has ever suggested that. I see no reason to suspect that you proposed that for any reason other than to be ridiculous (furthermore as other ridiculous people have also offered it previously to be ridiculous I suspect you copied it from them in hopes of using it to kill the discussion entirely).

I shoot your third-grade arguments back to you

I ask you third-grade level questions, to see if you have even third-grade level comprehension, and you generally show that you do not.

Comment: Re:Grab 'n dash (Score 1) 13

by damn_registrars (#47547393) Attached to: it boggles the mind

(Took a chance seeing who's post this third one was, hoping that since mine wasn't a political JE it might not be toxic.)

I ask you to make fewer assumptions in the future based on the author's name alone.

As I had been wondering that if this person was trying to get in, why not really try and get in, so thanks for posting this as a possible explanation.

You're welcome. I have heard of it happening more than once at universities; in research labs, offices, libraries, even in dorms.

Still uncomfortably brazen of this person.

I agree. Some people are quite bold.

I suppose with the blinds flapping so wildly, this person could've looked in and saw the back of someone sitting in a recliner and could've decided to take the chance that I had fallen asleep and that maybe it was potentially a grab-and-go opportunity.

I can't speak for them or their motivations. Indeed they could have been after something else entirely or it could have been someone who thought they were at a different door. I will speculate though from what I have read of grab 'n dash crimes previously that they likely didn't think real hard on it; I'd be surprised if they even looked in the window. If they had heard your TV they may have even thought there were a number of people there (party) and that it would be that much easier to walk in, grab something, and walk back out.

I would say think pickpocket, not mugger / murderer.

And I would never defend property with a firearm

If you're near the door, and they come in and you shoot before you wait to see if they are armed, I would say you were defending your property more than your life. Now granted some would say that if you wait you are foolish, and gambling with your life or whatnot. Generally the pizza guy knocks, and people seeking help say so from the door (rather than coming through it first), but it could just be someone at the wrong door with no malicious intent.

Personally I would expect that if you just yelled at the person at the door - just a loud "HEY WHO (with or without expletive inserted here) ARE YOU" - they would probably turn tail and run without even pushing the door open.

Comment: Grab 'n dash (Score 1) 13

by damn_registrars (#47546603) Attached to: it boggles the mind
This is a not-terribly-uncommon strategy for some thieves. They look for doors that they don't have to do anything special to enter through, grab the first thing of value they see, and run as fast as they can. Happens far too often at universities as well; thieve enter in broad daylight, grab a laptop, and run as quick as possible (generally to the closest pawn shop). It's the equivalent of opening someone's shed and grabbing their lawnmower to sell for a quick buck.

You could buy a firearm to defend your stuff, but it seems like your door lock did its job fairly well here, didn't it?

Comment: Re:There is a definition (Score 1) 17

by damn_registrars (#47545853) Attached to: niwdoG
I could just turn it all around at this point and ask you what your goal is here. Why do you come to slashdot and partake in discussions on topics that you are not the least bit knowledgeable - or interested in coming knowledgeable - on? Are you doing this just to waste other peoples' time?

It would be one thing if you were coming here to learn about a topic that you have no working knowledge of. However your comments show that you not only are completely lacking in knowledge but you are also completely lacking in interest in obtaining any.

Comment: Re:It's actually worse than that (Score 1) 30

Take a stand, is the administration competent or not?

They are competent at campaigning and "winning" elections.

If those are the only competencies of the current administration then you have just admitted that your conspiracy theories regarding them preparing to invoke a new world order are completely unsubstantiated. Thank you.

If you want to present that case then you need to abandon your bits about them going for socialist world domination as the two are fully incompatible since no incompetent clown could even aspire to pull that off.

The point you seem to miss is that, for an ultimately incompetent clown, the self-awareness to grasp the unattainability of the world domination isn't going to be there.

No. A clown of any stripes would not attempt world domination. A self-aware clown is aware of his role to distract attention and would not attempt anything else. An ignorant or incompetent clown would just run around pulling silly tricks for an audience.

Especially in our case, the total information control needed to ensure that a disaster like ObamaCare fails into the ultimate failure of Single Prayer (at a controlled rate) just can't be done.

So if it can't be done, then why do you insist they are trying to do it? You are making your conspiracy theory less believable, not more. That is actually quite a feat, being as you so far have presented not a single fact to support it.

Oh, and then there is the border crisis.

How exactly does that fit in to anything here? And how is the border situation any different in 2014 than it was in 2004 or 1994? You want to resist change; yet now we have a situation where nothing has changed for decades and you are screaming for change.

But that's the Manchu language for you: dying with a slow squish.

I substituted in something that you are likely equally as knowledgeable on as the topic you tried to use in this quote.

Comment: Re:What's your point? (Score 1) 16

by damn_registrars (#47545747) Attached to: Practical socialism

[snarkiness]

What a brilliant opening, it really shows plainly the strength of your argument and how well rooted it is in reality.

It is rather hard to balance a budget when a large population of the people tasked with doing that are hard-set ideologues who refuse to negotiate on what should be in the budget in any way, shape, or form. Believe it or not, democracy is supposed to involve compromise.

Less snarkily, leadership, in general, is not about finger-pointing.

Believe it or not, there is plenty of finger pointing coming from both parties in DC. Your party is not by any means above it.

The notion of the entitlements being unsustainable is entirely manufactured.

Oh, well, then, why don't they make us all millionaires, then?

I wish you actually presented an argument there, instead of just more snarkiness. I would love to actually discuss this matter with you but that statement does not indicate any interest from you to do so.

I find you and your accusations of my ignorance completely laughable.

You certainly haven't yet countered by demonstrating knowledge.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

Working...