Monument Riots Come To SCREECHING HALT In Texas After

a reply to: sine.nomine

I do!

I wish you would read:

Not promoting the "shoot em up", merely showing you the double standards. Well that word fits it perfectly.

it´s not about tit for that

I agree, it´s overly excessive to shoot someone because he does property damage. What part of my post got you (despite my several disclaimers) to think that?

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: verschickter

Hey if they are destroying stuff arrest and prosecute but no one deserves to be shot over a defaced statue.

I agree!

originally posted by: sine.nomine
But to insinuate I'm on the left is kinda funny to me... I'm far from left.

It must be the whiskey because I even wrote that I´m not putting you in a political category. That post isn´t that long, it´s written at the end.


That´s another problem, I even write it down and still people read what they want.

This is what I wrote:

I´m not putting you in any political drawer, meaning I took your question as an example, not your political standpoint.

Go home you´re drunk.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: 727Sky

Excellent!
I also don't care about the hurt feelings of Liberals.
I didn't know they had any feelings.

The media tells them when to be offended,
and how they feel about it

So this wasn't even a real cop. I guess it really was fake news. Written by "Prissy Holly", a "disgruntled military veteran" who claims to be "exposing the truth".

a reply to: DAVID64

It´s insanity but mostly bold talk I hope, you know, the internet... Not sure if you know my standpoint on guns I own several, I hunt.

ETA : Don't get me wrong...as long as they don't come after me or mine or endanger another, I will not shoot someone over such petty things as defacing a statue. But...if they do, the story will change very quickly.

Like it´s supposed to be

a reply to: DAVID64

If I came home late at night and found a bunch of people armed with things capable of destroying something as solid as a statue wrecking my property and I ordered them to leave or face the risk of being shot and they refused to comply, I would be perfectly within my legal right to use force to neutralize the clear and present threat to both my property and any living thing that happened to be on it. It's my personal property, I'm outnumbered by people with the means to harm me and others in the vicinity, and as long as I don't just shoot without warning and don't give them opportunity to comply with that warning or shoot anyone in the back, I have the right to defend my property under the law.

Texas monuments are the personal property of Texas state citizens, just like in any other state. We pay for their upkeep, and we're serious about preserving our history...even the parts that are shameful. Take a tour of the Capitol building...I recommend Richard over there as a guide, he's a personal friend...they don't gloss over the past. People don't learn from mistakes that way. Destroying proof of it doesn't make it go away. We need to face it, own it.

The warning isn't a threat. It's a warning. People are more than welcome to come and check out our personal property and learn about our history, warts and all. However, if they want to come here and wreak havoc and destroy what we so carefully keep preserved, skulking cowardly around in the dark assaulting statues like a pack of juvenile delinquents, most of us are not going to be feeling very hospitable toward them.

This is our house. If people want to be allowed in it, they need to respect the rules of it. We've already seen the tragic results of what can happen when things get out of hand. We don't want any of that crap happening on our property. And if people come here looking for a brawl, they're going to be met at the door with force.

A police officer who doesn't know the law. Maybe he just felt like making some threatening, tough guy talk.

edit:

Seems not to be an officer, just goof.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Yes, on YOUR property. This is about the public..

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: tigertatzen

Yes, on YOUR property. This is about the public..

This is about people potentially destroying the personal property of Texas citizens, and how we aren't going to allow that to happen. I am a Texan, and it's my personal property, too.

I am a Texan, and it's my personal property, too.

That's not how the laws see it. Chase someone out into the street and shoot them and see what happens.

Fake or not I like the idea. Liberal moron destroys a public property statue and then gets to test wether it can still provide effective hard cover.

a reply to: tigertatzen

If I came home late at night and found a bunch of people armed with things capable of destroying something as solid as a statue wrecking my property and I ordered them to leave or face the risk of being shot and they refused to comply, I would be perfectly within my legal right to use force to neutralize the clear and present threat to both my property and any living thing that happened to be on it.

Emphasis added.

This is about people potentially destroying the personal property of Texas citizens, and how we aren't going to allow that to happen. I am a Texan, and it's my personal property, too.

It´s not your personal property, it´s called public property.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Hang on a minute folks....You all know I'm a staunch defender of the 2nd and pro concealed carry. I'm as tired of this rabid Liberal BS as the next person, but....
Do you really...seriously...think you'd kill someone over a statue?
If they turned on you with a hammer or whatever, fine, defend yourself if you have to, but Jesus Christ people...we're talking about killing another human being over a chunk of rock.

This has gone WAY too goddamn far.

But sadly enough, this is what you get when you keep pushing and pushing. People will have enough and fight back. If a couple of assholes loose their lifes to make a point, so be it. You wanted a fight well what do you expect

I hope those of you who think this okay realize this makes you more extreme than UTR and Anti-fa combined.

a reply to: Kali74

99% is bold talking. It´s easy to rave about pulling a trigger, yet, when it comes to this special situation (not in defense), it takes a cold blooded one to shoot (kill) someone because he´s spraypainting or sledgehammering an inanimate object.

So let´s draw that scene.

Badass ATS member sees someone at night, spraypainting/defacing a random object. Although, we learned (theantejuvenile, thx) that you have no backup from the law if you shoot him, let´s just ignore that for a second.

The badass ATS members now has several options:
- Shoot the perpetrator instantly -> cold blooded murder
- Speak up, perpetrator flees -> cold blooded murder
- Speak up, get attacked -> probably justified self defense
- Speak up, perpetrator stays on site because yeah, you´re pointing a firearm at him. -> shoot him -> cold blooded murder

Regardless how one spins it, if not attacked, it´s always that. Cold blooded murder. But after all, it´s the internet and armchair warriors are present like sand at a beach.

It takes a special rotten soul to do that if no apparent threat is present to the one in question or even other ones. I guess there are people, just waiting for a chance to end someones life having their ass covered by self-defense.

I know you're all saying this is about people being shot for vandalism, but I understood the OP to be about defending yourself if you're attacked after asking them to stop, not killing someone just for toppling a statue.

If you ask them to stop but they attack you instead, then shoot them. Different kettle of fish to what you're all saying.

Or is it me that's got it wrong?

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Kali74

99% is bold talking. It´s easy to rave about pulling a trigger, yet, when it comes to this special situation (not in defense), it takes a cold blooded one to shoot (kill) someone because he´s spraypainting or sledgehammering an inanimate object.

So let´s draw that scene.

Badass ATS member sees someone at night, spraypainting/defacing a random object. Although, we learned (theantejuvenile, thx) that you have no backup from the law if you shoot him, let´s just ignore that for a second.

The badass ATS members now has several options:
- Shoot the perpetrator instantly -> cold blooded murder
- Speak up, perpetrator flees -> cold blooded murder
- Speak up, get attacked -> probably justified self defense
- Speak up, perpetrator stays on site because yeah, you´re pointing a firearm at him. -> shoot him -> cold blooded murder

Regardless how one spins it, if not attacked, it´s always that. Cold blooded murder. But after all, it´s the internet and armchair warriors are present like sand at a beach.

It takes a special rotten soul to do that if no apparent threat is present to the one in question or even other ones. I guess there are people, just waiting for a chance to end someones life having their ass covered by self-defense.

In the old days I would have agreed 100%... Now people get killed for their skin color or being in the wrong place at a bad time. Nothing to do with defacing anything ...just plain sick brain dead meanness by some for whatever reason.

a reply to: verschickter

Dunno. Lots of moral superiority (including myself) around here. Most of us just argue what's right and wrong.

originally posted by: verschickter

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: verschickter

Hey if they are destroying stuff arrest and prosecute but no one deserves to be shot over a defaced statue.

I agree!

Perhaps. It would be overboard...if the situation were normal to begin with.

But what is happening in the USA today...cant help but feel...the vandals would hardly be deterred by the miserable punishments proscribed for such "crimes".

These days...watching all this unfold...cant help but wish for a hard line. Order needs to be restored or we are all fu****.