Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Shooting a girl on your property
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Shooting a girl on your property  (Read 30722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2009, 04:39:29 PM »

Quote
You can't own... your kids...

You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.

This is the insanity that makes normal human beings look at me askance when I say I'm a libertarian. I hate this bullshit. I try to distance myself from the term self-ownership, because it implies that human lives are property, and since you can't transfer ownership of yourself, you can't be property, so "owning" yourself doesn't apply. It's a self-detonating concept, a thing cannot simultaneously BE and OWN property, nor can the thing being owned be the same as the thing doing the owning.. The concept of self lacks key features of property, so it's a poor metaphor, at best.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 04:43:51 PM by Dylboz »
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2009, 04:47:58 PM »

Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...

those with the will and the intent can get their hands on nasty stuff...no matter what...

hell, a gallon of gasoline(siphoned from a parked car) and a bug sprayer(liberated from the local dump) can do ALOT-OF-DAMAGE...

.....

and, with reference to trespassers on your thousand acres...

how would anyone ever know whether they made it ONTO your property...or whether they made it OFF of your property...

or whether they were eaten by your tigers...or whether they fell down that old mineshaft...or...whatever...

I'd say if you've got your property fenced off(to keep the lions and tigers and bears in) and it's posted("no trespassing-violators will become dinner for lions, tigers, and bears...oh my")...

then trespassers get whatever they get...falling down a mineshaft...drowning in the river...getting eaten by the bears...whatever...

of course, others may conduct their own property as they see fit...

Logged

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2009, 05:09:18 PM »

Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?

This can't be right, for the simple reason that I don't own whatever happens to be in my pocket. If I find your book and put it in my pocket, it is still your book, not mine.

If you put my book in your pocket w/o my permission it is still mine but if I put my book in your pocket.  It is yours.  You can certainly not be held responsible for returning it to me or preventing it from being harmed.   You entered into no such agreement.
Logged

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2009, 10:26:00 PM »

Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...

those with the will and the intent can get their hands on nasty stuff...no matter what...

hell, a gallon of gasoline(siphoned from a parked car) and a bug sprayer(liberated from the local dump) can do ALOT-OF-DAMAGE...

.....

and, with reference to trespassers on your thousand acres...

how would anyone ever know whether they made it ONTO your property...or whether they made it OFF of your property...

or whether they were eaten by your tigers...or whether they fell down that old mineshaft...or...whatever...

I'd say if you've got your property fenced off(to keep the lions and tigers and bears in) and it's posted("no trespassing-violators will become dinner for lions, tigers, and bears...oh my")...

then trespassers get whatever they get...falling down a mineshaft...drowning in the river...getting eaten by the bears...whatever...

of course, others may conduct their own property as they see fit...



Some years back, "Reader's Digest" did a story about a teenager who developed an interest in nuclear physics. He wanted to do some experimenting, and so needed some radioactive material. He wrote to numerous labs and had not trouble obtaining a whole bunch of old smoke detectors and other devices containing radiological elements. He got enough material that, had he wished, he could have manufactured a sizable radiological weapon.

That, fortunately, was not his goal. But, somehow the authorities found out about it, and raided his house.
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2009, 10:09:48 AM »

Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...

those with the will and the intent can get their hands on nasty stuff...no matter what...

hell, a gallon of gasoline(siphoned from a parked car) and a bug sprayer(liberated from the local dump) can do ALOT-OF-DAMAGE...

.....

and, with reference to trespassers on your thousand acres...

how would anyone ever know whether they made it ONTO your property...or whether they made it OFF of your property...

or whether they were eaten by your tigers...or whether they fell down that old mineshaft...or...whatever...

I'd say if you've got your property fenced off(to keep the lions and tigers and bears in) and it's posted("no trespassing-violators will become dinner for lions, tigers, and bears...oh my")...

then trespassers get whatever they get...falling down a mineshaft...drowning in the river...getting eaten by the bears...whatever...

of course, others may conduct their own property as they see fit...



Some years back, "Reader's Digest" did a story about a teenager who developed an interest in nuclear physics. He wanted to do some experimenting, and so needed some radioactive material. He wrote to numerous labs and had not trouble obtaining a whole bunch of old smoke detectors and other devices containing radiological elements. He got enough material that, had he wished, he could have manufactured a sizable radiological weapon.

That, fortunately, was not his goal. But, somehow the authorities found out about it, and raided his house.

perhaps the bigger thought/point/object/lesson/etc. here...is...

here we have a person(regardless of "age") who is interested in a particular science...

in the free market he could/would be invited and ENCOURAGED to join others already working on similar/same types of research...

in the current environment he would get jackbooted for just opening a lemonade stand...

let alone trying to further scientific knowledge and achievements to better mankind...

fucking mobocracy looter minions anyways...

ask how I really feel...

Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2009, 06:00:37 PM »

Individuals can already own nuclear weapons.  Laws don't stop people from owning things.  It is just that individuals are not interested in owning nuclear weapons.
I'd get one if I could.

everybody knows you can make a dirty bomb with an old smoke detector(found in trash=$0.00) and a few other cheap/free things...

there are other sources of nuclear, biological, and chemical substances as well...for those who are so inclined...
I don't want a dirty bomb or bio weapon. I want tactical nukes.

Quote
The uses on the battlefield for TNWs would include:
Against a large ground force
Against a fortified underground bunker
Against remote and/or heavily-defended target locations difficult or impossible to reach with conventional weapons
Against a carrier battle group or any collection of surface vessels
Against a large amphibious invasion force
Against a 100+ vehicle supply convoy
Against a squadron of strategic bombers
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 08:36:22 PM by blackie »
Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2009, 09:01:23 PM »

This is simply not true. It solves the problem of what to do with a guy who has demonstrated a total lack of respect for human life and a willingness to kill children in cold blood, it solves the problem of a murderer running around in your community, it solves the problem of the danger his continued existence poses to other children and humans. As for the "feeling better" part, you ignore proportionality. Stringing him up and taking his land as recompense is proportional to the crime. Tooth removal for sale on eBay is obviously not. Lack of proportionality is the reason this guy is a murderer in the first place! I know you're not that stupid, fatcat. Neither am I.

I was extending the analogy of tooth pulling as unnecessary and barbaric form of justice.

Pulling teeth to pay repairs for someone who smashed up your car will "solve" the problem, the point is, there is more than one way to deal with an issue, and violence shouldn't be used except to stop violence (or in consensual uses).

And as I pointed out in my post, the whole "stopping crimes in the future" is classic future crimes bullshit which I shouldn't need to go into. I could use the same bullshit logic to profer crippling of thieves, or monitoring of all ex-cons, etc.

Point is, execution doesn't make anything better, than that which can be achieved by moral, civilized means, and ultimately, a live person can do more to make up for a crime than a dead one.

Quote
Stringing him up and taking his land as recompense is proportional to the crime.

No its not.

What part of stringing him up is in anyway recompense for taking a life?

As I already mentioned, executing a person does nothing to pay someone back for anything, and thus cannot be a form of compensation or restitution(especially if you count the cost of an execution).

The only way you can wangle it, is that if you think "feeling better" or "feeling better via revenge", can be compensation for a crime, and then who decides what is "enough" to make someone feel better? If you stab me in the kidney do I get to have your penis amputated because thats the only thing I say will make me feel better?

Firstly, its a completely subjective standard, which justice should absolutely not be about. If you steal from me, you owe me what you stole, and under some systems, you owe me what you stole, plus interest, plus what it cost to get back what you stole.

Obviously taking a life is of near inestimable value. Since we currently don't have the technology to resurrect people, so the compensation is practically infinite, which could translate to imprisonment in a labor camp, with all of the prisoners wealth generation going into resurrection technology, or something both parties agree on.

If someone steals a candy bar from you, there is an inherit limit to what you deserve in compensation.

The criminal cannot avoid his responsibility for restitution, but likewise, the victim cannot demand absolutely anything for compensation. Parties should be able to come to any understanding they want, but if theres a disagreement, theres a baseline for each party. One who owes and one who is owed.

You have done nothing to address this core point, besides the fact its immoral to kill someone when you don't have to.

If during the point of you trying to get compensated, the murderer tries to hurt you or other people, then by all means, use force against him, but if someones willing to repay for the harm they've done, they should not be used.

If its okay to use force, i.e. execute a murderer, for that crime, because it satisfies justice under the guise of "revenge", then why can't victims use force for other crimes? Lets go back to the candy bar analogy.

1 candybar theft is equivalent to what? A kick in the nuts? Chinese burn?

As you can see, this thing is totally subjective, but when it comes to murder, theres a very shallow reciprocation of "eye for an eye" thats easy to fall into. How about rape for a rape? You'd probably say that, it would be perfectly just for the guy to just pay back for the candy bar, theres not need to use violence, it wouldn't serve anything, except to satiate petty violent urges.

What if the guy can't pay the candy bar back? Do you get to kill him then? No, you'll work out some way of him working. What if its a african peasant who trashes a million dollar sports car? Theres no way he will earn that amount of wealth in his lifetime, but as victim, you'd still deserve whatever he could afford to pay untill he payed you back or died.

The same thing goes for murderers. Stealing a life is magnitudes worse than stealing a candy bar, people are incredibly valuable, in a tangible and sentimental, but justice should always be about healing the victim, not meting out punishments.

Prisons can be run at a profit, so the idea that we need to execute murderers to keep people safe is ridiculous

Not happy with the candybar analogy? Maybe you're gonna say something like, when you initiate force on someone, you lose your right not to have violence used on you. So are you consistent with other violent crimes? If someone breaks your arm, can you break theirs back? What if they were sorry afterwards and offered to pay you back? What if it was an accident?

If the person doesn't agree to deal with their crimes, and use force to avoid it, then sure, feed your blood lust, but having defacto "eye for an eye, life for a life" is a banner under which terrible barbarism can be commited.

People in favor of execution are just giving in to base evolutionary drives that say hurt people who hurt you, and especially hurt people who hurt your family.
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2009, 09:11:27 PM »

People in favor of execution are just giving in to base evolutionary drives that say hurt people who hurt you, and especially hurt people who hurt your family.
You say that like evolutionary drives are a bad thing. I trust evolution.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 09:14:21 PM by blackie »
Logged

KDus

  • Democracy=fraud
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 433
  • Money
    • View Profile
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2009, 09:16:12 PM »

Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?
NO.
Possession doesn't equal ownership.
Logged
Liberate America!

Harry Tuttle

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
  • Please don't feed the elitists
    • View Profile
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2009, 12:37:35 AM »

Jesus Christ!!!!! I can't believe someone's imagination can be so limited as to entertain the idea that it is government made laws that keep men from shooting little girls who cross their land. There might be the occasional whack job who would think to kill a child (as there is now) and their treatment from society would be not much different than it is now, except those investigating would be dressed differently and those who administer justice would be judged and held accountable.

As for some garbage about the complexity of knowing the rules someone has for their property, it wouldn't be much different than now. If you lit up a cigarette in my house, for example, I would politely ask you not to smoke in my house. If you refused to stop I would invite you to leave. If you refused to leave there would be a commotion. Of course that is a silly scenario. These types of things don't tend to happen because humans like to get along and tend to treat each other with respect.
Logged
"If you're giving up your freedom to have freedom you don't have freedom, dummy."              - Mark Edge (10/11/08 show)

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2009, 11:11:56 AM »

Jesus Christ!!!!! I can't believe someone's imagination can be so limited as to entertain the idea that it is government made laws that keep men from shooting little girls who cross their land. There might be the occasional whack job who would think to kill a child (as there is now) and their treatment from society would be not much different than it is now, except those investigating would be dressed differently and those who administer justice would be judged and held accountable.

As for some garbage about the complexity of knowing the rules someone has for their property, it wouldn't be much different than now. If you lit up a cigarette in my house, for example, I would politely ask you not to smoke in my house. If you refused to stop I would invite you to leave. If you refused to leave there would be a commotion. Of course that is a silly scenario. These types of things don't tend to happen because humans like to get along and tend to treat each other with respect.


very very well said!

kudos

Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2009, 01:47:51 PM »

People in favor of execution are just giving in to base evolutionary drives that say hurt people who hurt you, and especially hurt people who hurt your family.
You say that like evolutionary drives are a bad thing. I trust evolution.

You say that like my entire point was infering that anything thats an evolutionary drive is bad. there is also a strong evolutionary drive to help other people, and in that case our base drives can coexist with more reasoned motives, but at the points where we feel urged to something that isn't moral, or reasonable, we should over-ride what we feel with what we can reason to be a better choice.

The point is, its a perfectly natural, evolutionarily advantageous response, to want to hurt people who try to hurt you or your family.
Evolution has been selecting that kind of behavior in animals for millions of years, and in humans for tens of thousands.

But it doesn't make it moral, and now that we have the capacity to think above our basest urges, we should choose a higher path, one based on reason, not raw emotion and bloodlust.

I have yet to hear a coherent rebuttle for the points made in my previous mega-post about how violence and subjective revenge cannot be part of any objectively fair judicial process, and that no one consistently applies the revenge=justice mantra, they only apply it in cases where it fits their primitive blood lust .i.e. when a family member is raped or murdered, or when they can empathise with other murders as if it was one of "their own.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 01:51:30 PM by fatcat »
Logged

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: Shooting a girl on your property
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2009, 02:09:48 PM »

Your land is like your pocket.  You own what's in it.  If I put something in your pocket than I gave it to you.  If I put myself on your land than I must be gifting myself to you.  Why would you shoot a girl you own?
NO.
Possession doesn't equal ownership.

WTF is wrong w/ you people?  I expected a couple of noobs to think I was serious.

Mike,
Very poor analogy. For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.

How's it different?  Why are the rules of ownership different depending on the thing that is owned?  Is my car like my pocket?  My house?  My Rose Garden?  I can still shoot someone for coming in my house right?  What if my property is fenced?  Does that make it more like my house or does it need a roof before I can defend it from trespassers?  What if my car doesn't have a roof?  What if my house has big holes in the walls, a smaller space to solid matter ratio than a chain link fence perhaps but no an impenetrable wall either?  Can I still defend the interior with deadly force?  If not?  What is the magic space to to solid matter ratio that makes my house more inviolable than my yard?


Logged

prashantpawar

  • Guest
NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2009, 02:17:17 PM »

First of all, Libertarians must understand when you get a question like this:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot a little flower picking girl/80 yr old senile grandma/a mentally disabled who ventured into your property?

first remove the "catch" of the question. This question is intended to trap you, and if you try to answer it the way a person puts it to you, you will never be able to satisfy the person who asks that question. Marc and Ian must learn not to get trapped into these kinds of questions in the show.

So answer this question first:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot anyone who ventured into your property, accidentally/intentionally?

The answer is, NO you do not have a right to shoot a person who came on to your property, that is an act of initiation of aggression. You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

That means:
  • If a person scams you of money/property,
    you have a right to get money back(no more)+compensation.
  • If a person slaps you,
    you have a right to slap him back(or get him slapped by someone you hired) or get monetary restitution worth the crime.
  • If a person kills your dog,
    you have the right to kill his dog or take him and keep it, or ask for monetary restitution(never both).
  • If a person rapes your daughter,
    you have the right to rape him(or have him raped) or get monetary restitution worth his crime.
  • If a person kills you,
    your estate has a right to have him killed or get monetary restitution worth the crime(depending upon your will).
  • If a person walks into your property picking flowers,
    you have a right to demand flowers from his property, or monetary restitution worth the crime.
  • If a person slaps you, and you slap him twice,
    that person has a right to slap you once back, or have you slapped or get monetary restitution because now you are the aggressor.
  • If a little girl walks into your property, and you shoot her dead,
    the parents/guardians have a right to have you killed or make you pay restitution for the death of that girl.
  • If a person walks into your home, and holds a gun on your head, and you shoot him dead,
    you have done no aggression, because a reasonable threat of violence was present, though final judgment would be a matter of fact decided by the courts.
  • If a person(with gun) walks into your home, and your door clearly says "No guns allowed without owner's permission", and you shoot him dead without any warning,
    you have done aggression against him(though it depends how you demonstrate a credible threat of violence to the courts, that is if his hand was on gun and trigger, you look better, if he was no where near his gun, then you look bad).


Once you answer that question, see if the "catch" of the original question really changes anything. For example, killing a girl/senile grandma/mentally challenged person does not changes the fact that it was an act of aggression.

On the other hand if it DOES change the fact, for example what if a 10 yr girl comes to your property and shoots your son, do you now get to punish her?
It might be difficult to answer that kind of question, but DO REMEMBER TO CHECK how current society handles that problem. Currently if a 10 yr old girl commits that crime she is considered as a juvenile delinquent, it depends if she understood what she did. If she understood what she did and the repercussions of her actions(say the crime was stealing someone's bike, now 10 yr old understand that stealing is wrong, as compared to say she lifted a gun and pointed to someone and shot from it), then she has the responsibility of the crime. She may or may not be punished for that at that time(like if she stole someone's bike or destroyed it, then her bike must be taken away, but say if its a murder and she knew what she was doing and the punishment might go a bit serious) then she may or may not be punished until she grows up and falls into the category of a grown up adult(as it happens in some cases today where a 17 yr old delinquent is not sent to a jail until he is 18).

The main point is, there is no such thing as a person below 18 yr of age is not responsible for his actions in any way or cannot give consent. In the common law system there was no such rule or law that a person below 18 yrs of age is not responsible for anything he or she does. It totally depended upon what kind of understanding that person has.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: NOT ALLOWED under proportionality of punishment and crime
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2009, 02:23:56 PM »

First of all, Libertarians must understand when you get a question like this:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot a little flower picking girl/80 yr old senile grandma/a mentally disabled who ventured into your property?

first remove the "catch" of the question. This question is intended to trap you, and if you try to answer it the way a person puts it to you, you will never be able to satisfy the person who asks that question. Marc and Ian must learn not to get trapped into these kinds of questions in the show.

So answer this question first:
In a Libertarian society would it be justified to shoot anyone who ventured into your property, accidentally/intentionally?

The answer is, NO you do not have a right to shoot a person who came on to your property, that is an act of initiation of aggression. You are at max allowed to respond to the aggression with the SAME AMOUNT OR LESS aggression as it was done against you.

That means:
  • If a person scams you of money/property,
    you have a right to get money back(no more)+compensation.
  • If a person slaps you,
    you have a right to slap him back(or get him slapped by someone you hired) or get monetary restitution worth the crime.
  • If a person kills your dog,
    you have the right to kill his dog or take him and keep it, or ask for monetary restitution(never both).
  • If a person rapes your daughter,
    you have the right to rape him(or have him raped) or get monetary restitution worth his crime.
  • If a person kills you,
    your estate has a right to have him killed or get monetary restitution worth the crime(depending upon your will).
  • If a person walks into your property picking flowers,
    you have a right to demand flowers from his property, or monetary restitution worth the crime.
  • If a person slaps you, and you slap him twice,
    that person has a right to slap you once back, or have you slapped or get monetary restitution because now you are the aggressor.
  • If a little girl walks into your property, and you shoot her dead,
    the parents/guardians have a right to have you killed or make you pay restitution for the death of that girl.
  • If a person walks into your home, and holds a gun on your head, and you shoot him dead,
    you have done no aggression, because a reasonable threat of violence was present, though final judgment would be a matter of fact decided by the courts.
  • If a person(with gun) walks into your home, and your door clearly says "No guns allowed without owner's permission", and you shoot him dead without any warning,
    you have done aggression against him(though it depends how you demonstrate a credible threat of violence to the courts, that is if his hand was on gun and trigger, you look better, if he was no where near his gun, then you look bad).


Once you answer that question, see if the "catch" of the original question really changes anything. For example, killing a girl/senile grandma/mentally challenged person does not changes the fact that it was an act of aggression.

On the other hand if it DOES change the fact, for example what if a 10 yr girl comes to your property and shoots your son, do you now get to punish her?
It might be difficult to answer that kind of question, but DO REMEMBER TO CHECK how current society handles that problem. Currently if a 10 yr old girl commits that crime she is considered as a juvenile delinquent, it depends if she understood what she did. If she understood what she did and the repercussions of her actions(say the crime was stealing someone's bike, now 10 yr old understand that stealing is wrong, as compared to say she lifted a gun and pointed to someone and shot from it), then she has the responsibility of the crime. She may or may not be punished for that at that time(like if she stole someone's bike or destroyed it, then her bike must be taken away, but say if its a murder and she knew what she was doing and the punishment might go a bit serious) then she may or may not be punished until she grows up and falls into the category of a grown up adult(as it happens in some cases today where a 17 yr old delinquent is not sent to a jail until he is 18).

The main point is, there is no such thing as a person below 18 yr of age is not responsible for his actions in any way or cannot give consent. In the common law system there was no such rule or law that a person below 18 yrs of age is not responsible for anything he or she does. It totally depended upon what kind of understanding that person has.

what about the guy who trespasses, slaps you in the face as he walks by, shoots your dog on his way inside to rape your daughter and murder your wife as she tries to help out your daughter?

I'm telling you RIGHT THE FUCK NOW...

I'M NOT WAITING FOR THE TRESPASSER TO BECOME A SLAPPER OR A DOG KILLER OR A RAPIST OR A MURDERER...

IF YOU TRESPASS WILLINGLY...I WILL ALWAYS ASSUME THAT ASSAULT/RAPE/MURDER IS AFOOT...

AND YOU WILL SUFFER AS LONG AS I AM ABLE TO BRING SUFFERING TO THE FIGHT...

LIVE FREE OR DIE...


any questions?


fucking looters anyways!

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Shooting a girl on your property

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 32 queries.