How's This For Polite

[brvheart 1,752]

At this point I can only conclude that you are suffering from confirmation bias at this point. You came to a conclusion early and you're defending it with points that have already been addressed and debunked fairly thoroughly. Your argument has crossed into the blatantly unreasonable category as far as I can tell. I could see the initial impression based on what I assume to be no experience with guns, or being attacked, training for such things, how things actually go under these conditions ect. Also based on the natural human revulsion at violence and whatnot. But I think I've laid it out pretty clear how a lot of what you are saying is flatly assumed, and how some of it is simply wrong, and the points are almost entirely ignored. Let's take a look:Though you qualified it at the end, and you could have just left the entire first paragraph off. Frankly, it shows what I'm talking about when I say confirmation bias. At no point in the thread, not in any single post or combination of posts, did I "argue that he was within his rights to shoot." In fact, I stated categorically, unequivocally that I "wasn't condoning the shooting" that I "couldn't say it was a good shoot or not", that "I don't have enough information". I said it multiple times.And every single time I provided a possible scenario was in direct response to someone drawing absolute conclusions based on their assumptions of what happened. Every single time. At no point did I say my scenarios were what happened, what probably happened, what must have happened... nothing. I was pointing out that the information that other people were making declarative statements about was not present. And other scenarios were just as likely. The progression:1. Cane said something about how the guy should have just muttered and got in his car and drove away. Or punched the guy. I said there may have been factors that could mean it wasn't that easy. One of the biggest being how close 15 feet is.2. Dubey said that he could have just pointed his gun and said some long ass sentence. I explained that 15 feet isn't as far as he thinks it is. I could stab you before you can get two words out. (Someone mentioned a "trained" guy or something... training has nothing to do with it. Anyone can get to you in under a second.). 3. You came in and said there was a big difference between 15 and 5 feet. You said a 10 foot warning was in order. This was absolutely wrong. And frankly it's ridiculous. I explained how even trained professionals can consider 21 feet to be imminent danger. 4. You responded with a made up scenario about the circumstances. You assumed the shooter thought the guy was unarmed. You have no idea if he had a phone in his hand, his hands in his pockets, a hand behind him, or just a balled fist that could have concealed something. You haven't any idea, but you stated it as fact. Also, and you've done this more than once, you're painting a picture that the shooter turned around, raised his gun in a measured fashion, aimed, checked the guy over, steadied his shot and blasted this "walking, unarmed guy who was just verbally berating him". You've done that multiple times.And you try to pass it off as the way things happened. It is just as likely that the guy dropped his groceries in his car, grabbed his gun as he hears the guy still berating him (who knows what he was saying or how he was saying, because the story is really, strangely in my opinion, sparse on what happened between when the shooter went in the store, came out and as he was walking to his car)... hears the guy coming up behind him, spins around and there the dude is 15 feet from him with his hands who knows where and fires a turning shot in fear of the guys cell phone or any number of things that may have scared the shit out of him.You have no idea. Neither do I. But I'm not the one making declarative statements like "He had plenty of time". Also, I have experience with how these situations play, and your concept of time in the situation is just not realistic, particularly for a guy who may have very little idea what he's doing and is in fight or flight mode. Multiple times you've painted this picture of the guy with "his gun aimed and ready". That is nowhere in the story. You keep saying it like it is. It isn't. Multiple times you say 15 feet is plenty of room/time. It isn't, under any circumstances. Even trained professionals can have a good shoot with an assailant with his hands in his pockets at 15 feet. Like, guys who are under strict guidelines. Because 15 feet is a one second stumble from you. I can't explain that any more clearly. It is entirely situation dependent. 15 feet is nothing. It is no buffer from attack. It is possible for a man to take the steps necessary to you before you even fully register he is upon you, unless you're trained for it. And hitting such a man is by no means certain, particularly in the fog and adrenalin of real world situations. So, you can keep saying that 15 feet is a long distance, and talk about how easy it is to shoot a man at 15 feet if he lunges at you. Saying that "you have plenty of time if he starts running at you... he wouldn't have time to actually "run" btw, because you can't get to speed in less than a second... and present this whole thing as if the shooter was a SF soldier who had turned, faced the man, drew down and aimed carefully at the guy... you can keep talking about it in that way, but most of this has nothing to do with reality, and none of it is justified by the information given. You'll probably just see this as me claiming that the aggressive guy was a monstrous ninja doing cartwheels toward the shooter, all the while hurling ninja stars and sai's at the poor, frightened, justified defender. Not much I can do about that at this point. This is pretty much the only thing you've said that is relevant to what I've been saying:And that would be debatable. Maybe he did shoot too early. The advancing guy's hands are a big part of it though, and I don't know what they were doing. Or how quickly he closed the distance as the shooter was tossing (Placing carefully?) his bags and grabbing (carefully picking up, inspecting for rounds and proper cleaning?) his gun and spinning (slowing turning in a semi-circle calmly?) toward the aggressor. So, maybe. No way to know.Here we go again. Am I ignoring that? Or are you ignoring that you are just inventing this draw down, aim, measured "ready to fire" scenario.“He went to his car, put whatever he purchased inside it, and he pulled out a gun and shot me” is the only information for the start to finish of the gun involvement.Can you point out where this idea that the aggressor was just standing there as the man pulled out his gun, turned, aimed, and was "ready to fire" in any measured way? Or that it happened in any sort of methodical, plenty of time to think way? Because I'm not seeing it. And this is even from the guy who got shot. His story is very, very sparse.The shooter could have done all that. He could have turned with the gun as the guy was at 30 feet. He could have raised the gun at 24 feet. He could have aimed at 20 feet, he could have closed one eye and brought his other hand under the gun for support at 18 feet, he could have thought to himself as the guy recognized the gun, stopped dead at 15 feet and put his hands out in the air, "do you feel lucky, punk?"... he could have felt the warmth of the sun on his face, felt the satisfying weight of the gun in his hand, congratulated himself on how steady his hands are, "Mom always said I should've been a surgeon". He could have waited for just the right spot in his exhale, waited for the moment between heartbeats. As a barely visible smirk creases his mouth... BLAM! "Another one bites the dust."Conversely, he could have been waddling quickly to his car with an inner monologue running. "Oh god, oh god, oh god... that psycho was waiting for me. Is he still back there? Oh shit, he's talking (yelling?) at me again... shit... shit... shit". "Oh man, oh man... I've got that gun. And I was scared of road rage? Fuck, he's getting closer. Bags down, get the gun... ok.. ok.." *spins* "oh **** he's right there what's that in his hand/why's his hand in his pocket/behind him/something in his fist? can't tell" BLAM! "SHIT".Or anything in between. Who fucking knows? You pretend to. Others are being absolutely retarded in their claims about the unknowns, down to the psychopathy of the shooter. They not only have concluded how it happened, but have gone into the shooter's mind and have diagnosed him.The story doesn't provide anywhere near enough information to fill in any of those details. And, as my point has been all along, there is no way to make a judgement on whether or not it was justifiable.

I think Speedz should just declare you the winner so he doesn't have to read that.

[ezelisko 0]

Spade, stop typing so damn much, it hurts my head. In the military (Marines), how I was instructed in MCMAP under weapons training, They usually assume closer then 30 feet is an unsafe distance with someone you might consider a hostile. Granted, this is not a warzone or anything to that nature, but the same fundamentals apply in the sense of self defense. One step can possibly bring someone within range to do bodily harm, whether it is a fist or a knife if the distance is approximately 15 feet. I don't know the specific law out where the incident occurred, but I do know that I would rather be judged by 12 then killed by 1. Someone who insists to the point of following a person on a polite response seems to show that person might be a bit mentally unstable. Walking away is suspicious, but also try to look at the other side of the scope. Maybe he went into a bit of a confusion once he shot him? Maybe it didn't register to him he did that. It is a very traumatic event with someone who gets shot, but it is also traumatic to someone who shoots and hits a person.

[speedz99 145]

At this point I can only conclude that you are suffering from confirmation bias at this point. You came to a conclusion early and you're defending it with points that have already been addressed and debunked fairly thoroughly. Your argument has crossed into the blatantly unreasonable category as far as I can tell.

Honestly, the biggest problem is that I have my last final of the semester this morning, so I have neither the time nor the mental capacity to carefully read and think about the discussion. I think the issue was that I originally read the story as, "I walked towards the guy at a normal pace, speaking in a normal tone of voice, and he shot me without warning," which just sounds like insanity. But I tried to really read what I guessed were the most relevant parts of your last post and feel like you're probably right about most of it. Also, I think I like ezelisko, and I'm guessing his short response, which makes a lot of sense, is basically a summary of your position.

[digitalmonkey 929]

The douche was admittedly following the guy out to his car. And that's even in his own, one-sided recounting of the story.

I love how you spin things ever so slightly to support your argument. He didn't say he followed him to his car. He said he followed him outside. And he seems to have been at a distance of about 15 or 16 feet. If the guy had time to put his items into the car and get his gun and then shoot Mr. Manners then he almost certainly would have had time to get in his car and drive away never having to deal with Mr. Manners again.Is there a SWAT video that times how fast people can get in their car and drive away?The shooter would most likely be charged with aggravated assault and would plead self-defense. The prosecution would then attempt to prove the shooter did not fear for his safety or that the amount of force was excessive in relation to the severity of the threat.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I don't think I want to ever be in the mindset that driving away after shooting someone is reasonable.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I know he used a lot of words, but it really feels like no one is reading what Spade is posting.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I know he used a lot of words, but it really feels like no one is reading what Spade is posting.

who?8.01 Use of Non-deadly force[A] A non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. However, the use of force must not be excessive in relation to the harm threatened. One is never permitted to use deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack.Nobody is claiming to know all the details of what went down. Sure we can come up with many possible scenarios, but I highly doubt any probable scenario involves the imminent use of unlawful force by Mr. Manners.

[Spademan 94]

Also, I think I like ezelisko, and I'm guessing his short response, which makes a lot of sense, is basically a summary of your position.

ezelisko reiterated a portion of my entire argument, but took my point and examples from a non-war zone to a war-zone, making it slightly less effective. So, it isn't a summary of my argument, but rather part of it.

I know he used a lot of words, but it really feels like no one is reading what Spade is posting.

Pretty much. There is no way to tell if digmonk is reading it or not however, since I'm skeptical he'd understand it either way.Besides, there is a Marine and a guy he thinks is still a Soldier making counter-points. He thinks we should be eating babies and killing women for freedom.

I don't think I want to ever be in the mindset that driving away after shooting someone is reasonable.

Well, a few things with this.1) A person doesn't need a reasonable reason to drive away from a justifiable thing to drive away from a justifiable thing. All kinds of irrational fears could come into play.2) A guy locked up a couple times for marijuana (or anything, I'm just using something innocuous) who faces heavy jail time for anything, let alone a shooting, even one he feels was completely justified, might find it perfectly reasonable to avoid the whole affair.3) I don't like the absolute nature of the statement on a purely logical level. Totally outside of this scenario, I could probably come up with reasons all day as to why it would be completely unreasonable to not drive away after shooting someone. A bunch of gangsters walk into a store as I am walking out. There is one outside. He pulls a knife on me as I am getting in my car and charges me. I shoot him. It would be really, really stupid to wait around for his friends to come out of the store.

who?8.01 Use of Non-deadly force[A] A non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. However, the use of force must not be excessive in relation to the harm threatened. One is never permitted to use deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack.Nobody is claiming to know all the details of what went down. Sure we can come up with many possible scenarios, but I highly doubt any probable scenario involves the imminent use of unlawful force by Mr. Manners.

Maybe I spoke to soon. You've actually changed your position greatly. From: It was definitely a psychopath shooting a guy for no good reason lol u soldier killer for freedom lolTo: Nobody has all the details. It's possible that it was justified, I just don't find it probable. And people say you can't be an asshole and encourage someone to remedy their foolishness.

[digitalmonkey 929]

ezelisko reiterated a portion of my entire argument, but took my point and examples from a non-war zone to a war-zone, making it slightly less effective. So, it isn't a summary of my argument, but rather part of it. Pretty much. There is no way to tell if digmonk is reading it or not however, since I'm skeptical he'd understand it either way.Besides, there is a Marine and a guy he thinks is still a Soldier making counter-points. He thinks we should be eating babies and killing women for freedom.Well, a few things with this.1) A person doesn't need a reasonable reason to drive away from a justifiable thing to drive away from a justifiable thing. All kinds of irrational fears could come into play.2) A guy locked up a couple times for marijuana (or anything, I'm just using something innocuous) who faces heavy jail time for anything, let alone a shooting, even one he feels was completely justified, might find it perfectly reasonable to avoid the whole affair.3) I don't like the absolute nature of the statement on a purely logical level. Totally outside of this scenario, I could probably come up with reasons all day as to why it would be completely unreasonable to not drive away after shooting someone. A bunch of gangsters walk into a store as I am walking out. There is one outside. He pulls a knife on me as I am getting in my car and charges me. I shoot him. It would be really, really stupid to wait around for his friends to come out of the store.Maybe I spoke to soon. You've actually changed your position greatly. From: It was definitely a psychopath shooting a guy for no good reason lol u soldier killer for freedom lolTo: Nobody has all the details. It's possible that it was justified, I just don't find it probable. And people say you can't be an asshole and encourage someone to remedy their foolishness.

I haven't changed my position at all, but continue believing so if it suits your needs. Obviously we don't have all the facts and just about anything is possible. I was stating my opinion on the matter and it is my opinion that the shooter is a psychopath. I'm basing my opinion on probabilities.How is the fact that you and a Marine are providing counterpoints relevant? You've mislead everyone from the beginning by claiming that Mr. Manners said he followed the shooter to his car.

[Spademan 94]

I haven't changed my position at all, but continue believing so if it suits your needs.

So the guy doesn't feel like saying thank you and shoots him.

Aaah...the guy was threatened enough to shoot him, but not threatened enough to turn and put stuff into his car.In summary:Hobo With A Gun (and a car)- psychotic- not a people person- should not be licensed to carry a gun (or should be in the military)

The guy who pulled the trigger was a psychopath. Spin it any way you want, soldier.

who?8.01 Use of Non-deadly force[A] A non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. However, the use of force must not be excessive in relation to the harm threatened. One is never permitted to use deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack.Nobody is claiming to know all the details of what went down. Sure we can come up with many possible scenarios, but I highly doubt any probable scenario involves the imminent use of unlawful force by Mr. Manners.

lol

[digitalmonkey 929]

lol

Oh. I guess I have to put "imo" after every statement I make or Spademan will assume I am claiming to have definitive proof.The shooter is a psychopath, imo. Better?

[Spademan 94]

I haven't changed my position at all, but continue believing so if it suits your needs. Obviously we don't have all the facts and just about anything is possible. I was stating my opinion on the matter and it is my opinion that the shooter is a psychopath. I'm basing my opinion on probabilities.How is the fact that you and a Marine are providing counterpoints relevant? You've mislead everyone from the beginning by claiming that Mr. Manners said he followed the shooter to his car.

Haha, then you qualify.Twice edited for our reading pleasure.1) Show me the Bayesian probabilities you've worked out based on the information provided, sport. I have a sneaking suspicion by "probabilities" you mean "what I first thought and now defend because I believe it."2) The fact that a Marine and I are providing counterpoints isn't relevant, to me. Outside of the fact that both have actually had experience with guns, distances, how distances close, what is considered imminent danger... outside of the relevant experience that can inform our assessment. Outside of the whole knowing what we're talking about thing regarding those issues.It's you that has been adding, "soldier" and "go kill someone in the name of freedom" to the end of your posts, you addled primate. So, ask yourself why it's relevant.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Well, a few things with this.1) A person doesn't need a reasonable reason to drive away from a justifiable thing to drive away from a justifiable thing. All kinds of irrational fears could come into play.2) A guy locked up a couple times for marijuana (or anything, I'm just using something innocuous) who faces heavy jail time for anything, let alone a shooting, even one he feels was completely justified, might find it perfectly reasonable to avoid the whole affair.3) I don't like the absolute nature of the statement on a purely logical level. Totally outside of this scenario, I could probably come up with reasons all day as to why it would be completely unreasonable to not drive away after shooting someone. A bunch of gangsters walk into a store as I am walking out. There is one outside. He pulls a knife on me as I am getting in my car and charges me. I shoot him. It would be really, really stupid to wait around for his friends to come out of the store.

1) Well, ok, but what? I was just saying I hope I don't ever think it's ok to shoot someone and then pretend like nothing happened. If I flee the scene due to irrational fear, that's not saying the same thing as reasoning out why it's perfectly acceptable to leave, right?3) In your scenario, would you just drive home? Or would you drive to a police station? Or be on your cell phone calling 911 right away? Any scenario you come up with here where it's completely reasonable to flee seem to also make it reasonable that you should be contacting authorities too.2) Even in a case like that I'd still think it better to call the police and make your statement. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to the cops in thinking there's a decent chance they find you anyway, in which case your argument that it was justified starts to look a little flimsier. Seems like the jury might be hesitant to believe the convicted criminal's story who fled the scene. I guess if you are really confident you won't get caught, it might be smart.I don't know why I went 1, 3, 2.

[Spademan 94]

Oh. I guess I have to put "imo" after every statement I make or Spademan will assume I am claiming to have definitive proof.The shooter is a psychopath, imo. Better?

Slightly, yes! It actually is slightly better! Nice!However, you can still be challenged on your opinion. Which would entail you using the information given to support your claim.And... back to square one with you flailing about failing to support your opinion on the matter.

[Spademan 94]

1) Well, ok, but what? I was just saying I hope I don't ever think it's ok to shoot someone and then pretend like nothing happened. If I flee the scene due to irrational fear, that's not saying the same thing as reasoning out why it's perfectly acceptable to leave, right?3) In your scenario, would you just drive home? Or would you drive to a police station? Or be on your cell phone calling 911 right away? Any scenario you come up with here where it's completely reasonable to flee seem to also make it reasonable that you should be contacting authorities too.2) Even in a case like that I'd still think it better to call the police and make your statement. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to the cops in thinking there's a decent chance they find you anyway, in which case your argument that it was justified starts to look a little flimsier. Seems like the jury might be hesitant to believe the convicted criminal's story who fled the scene. I guess if you are really confident you won't get caught, it might be smart.I don't know why I went 1, 3, 2.

No, I know you were just meta-arguing (thanks LLY). My main point was that driving away does not say anything whatsoever about the shooting itself.As for 2), a lot of people just don't trust the police. I'd stick around and take my chances, but I'm not afraid of the police or the justice system and am confident I can defend myself (with a lawyer, obviously) competently. But, you take a not-to-bright guy who's spent a fair amount of time in prison because he got caught smoking weed twice in a year, admonished that he's fucked to all hell if he gets so much as a parking ticket in the future, and the dynamic of what he finds reasonable may shift considerably.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

No, I know you were just meta-arguing (thanks LLY). My main point was that driving away does not say anything whatsoever about the shooting itself.

I don't think that was meta-arguing. You made it pretty clear that we can't know what the scenario really was with this guy, so I was just talking about how I hope I would handle things if I was ever in a similar scenario.Of course, the odds are against that since I don't own a gun and I thank people for holding doors for me.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Of course, the odds are against that since I don't own a gun and I thank people for holding doors for me.

What are you, Canadian?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

What are you, Canadian?

I think Scram would say I personify the pussification of America.So, basically yes.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I think Scram would say I personify the pussification of America.So, basically yes.

USA! USA! USA!

[Spademan 94]

Of course, the odds are against that since I don't own a gun and I thank people for holding doors for me.

You make me sick.Get out of my COUNTRY!USA! USA! USA! USA!

USA! USA! USA!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

USA!

TOO LATE ASSHOLE GTFOUSA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

_USA.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think Scram would say I personify the pussification of America.So, basically yes.

I chuckled.EDIT: oh. Spade's was funny too.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

You make me sick.Get out of my COUNTRY!USA! USA! USA! USA!

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

_USA.

I really liked the way this whole post was done.

[solderz 0]

Woot! Three cheers for this thread! Or is it jeers. Anyway, I love it. Bang, Bang, Shoot, Shoot. Happiness is warm gun, yes it is.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Haha, then you qualify.Twice edited for our reading pleasure.

This is you trying to discredit my post by pointing out that I edited it even though I didn't change the meaning. This is petty and amusing.

1) Show me the Bayesian probabilities you've worked out based on the information provided, sport. I have a sneaking suspicion by "probabilities" you mean "what I first thought and now defend because I believe it."

I did the calculations in my head so there is nothing to show you. I didn't use Bayesian inference as I am unfamiliar with the incidence of this crime in Georgia or the entire USA for that matter and it relies on the probability of guilt which I, like Gardner-Medwin, don't believe to be an accurate measurement. Instead, I considered the three propositions used by Gardner-Medwin which are as follows:1) The known facts and testimony could have arisen if the defendant is guilty,2) The known facts and testimony could have arisen if the defendant is innocent,3) The defendant is guilty.Based on the story we have I believe 1 and not 2 which makes the shooter guilty, imo. If a witness or the shooter comes forward with facts or testimony supporting 2 then I will reconsider my position.

2) The fact that a Marine and I are providing counterpoints aren't relevant, to me. Outside of the fact that both have actually had experience with guns, distances, how distances close, what is considered imminent danger... outside of the relevant experience that can inform our assessment. Outside of the whole knowing what we're talking about thing regarding those issues.

My calculations lead me to believe the shooter was not in imminent danger and probably used "deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack" so, no, I don't think your (nor the Marine's) alleged knowledge of guns, distances, etc, is relevant.

It's you that has been adding, "soldier" and "go kill someone in the name of freedom" to the end of your posts, you addled primate. So, ask yourself why it's relevant.

Simply my response to such things as "drooling retard" and "addled primate."