User Profile: The0bserver

Member Since: July 09, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • June 14, 2013 at 11:24am

    And the irony of it, what with Father’s Day coming up.

  • June 14, 2013 at 11:21am

    Straight out of 1984. Somewhere in the O administration is a Winston whose job it is to scrub history. Shameful.

    Responses (1) +
  • June 2, 2013 at 11:55pm

    I didn’t call you any names, so it was unnecessary to call me one. I think our conversation has ended. Go ahead and plant evidence. I won’t cry (now) when you go to prison.

    I only cared to respond to your missives, because I didn’t want other people to take your advice and risk going to prison, because it was bad advice, criminal advice.

  • June 2, 2013 at 11:52pm

    And we’re saying that the cop gave you very bad advice. I’ve seen people go to prison for a long time for doing what this officer says, because if tampering is proven, one needs to learn out to pick up soap without bending over, if you get my drift. Juries tend to see tamperers as liars, and they can’t trust any claim made by someone they see is a liars. That’s my point, to keep the good guys out of prison. I’m on your side (as long as you ignore that policeman’s advice. I think what the officer was really saying is, if one shoots someone, the deadman better have a deadly weapon on him, or in other words, one should not shoot someone unless he has a deadly weapon. At least I hope that is what the the officer meant, and what he said was just hyperbole.)

  • June 2, 2013 at 11:33pm

    My comment was referring to what the original poster, RDavis49, said.

  • June 2, 2013 at 11:32pm

    OK, the original poster did call people idiots for tampering with evidence, but don’t take it so personal. Sheesh. You have to admit, if you think about it cooly, that tampering with evidence is stupid. e is absolutely correct about planting things and tampering with evidence. Forensics will find out and the tamperer will be put on trial, and if the jury believes the evidence shows that it was tampered with, that will go bad for the defense of the shooter. I’ve seen real court cases on this stuff and jury usually doubts that the shooter’s life was truely threatened, afterall since he lied about tampering, he is probably lying about being in mortal danger. Afterall, if he was really threatened, the argument will go, why didn’t he just leave things as they were, unless he himself felt that he wasn’t really in danger. Truth needs no story. Everyone should learn the law in their state, if they wish to avoid prison, while the real bad guy (any survivor) skates. Maybe deadmen tell no lies, but forensics, nowadays, can detect lies. Also, detectives don’t like people who change the story. It sends off alarm bells. Look at this case, the focus is all on the shooter. Where is the bad guy, what happened to him? I haven’t seen anything about what is happening with the bad guy. My bet is that he is laughing that the focus is away from him.

  • June 2, 2013 at 11:17pm

    El_Caballo_Negro, you are misfiring on all cylinders. Are you commenting on someone else’s post, because I don’t see the comments you are referring to? Are you sure you are in the right place? Certainly neither I nor the original poster called anyone an idiot.

  • June 2, 2013 at 11:15pm

    El_Caballo_Negro, I guess you have no reading comprehension skills. Your comment makes absolutely no sense with regard to what the original poster posted and my comment. You want hypotheticals, OK, go ahead and place a weapon in the bad guy’s hand, drag his body leaving a blood trail, tamper with the evidence. Even you attempt to wipe up the blood, forensics will rat you out and you will be the one in court, and you will probably go to prison for a long time.

    Think about it, if you have tampered with evidence, you have essentially lied, and it will come out in court. How to you think a jury will take your claim of being attacked, now that you have established yourself as a liar. It sucks, but why go to prison instead of the bad guys. Elections have consequences.

    Read my comments further down on this page and you will find that I believe in armed self defense, but only so far as is legal, because who wants to be farther out on the limb than the real criminal. He will only laugh at you and call you a sucker, and be free and on his merry way.

  • June 2, 2013 at 11:06pm

    Stay alert and vote accordingly, because make no mistake, the crazy leftists are out for you state. They can’t wait to take control and ruin it.

  • June 2, 2013 at 10:56pm

    This is what happens when madman liberals make the laws. What would you expect from people (Communists/Progressives) who want to free all criminals from prisons, because the criminal is in prison only because the capitalists “hoard” money which “doesn’t belong to them,” because “all property should be owned only by the State or Collective,” so they claim that there can be no thieves, because it was never owned by person it was taken from. If you don’t understand that, it means you have clear thinking and are not a madman like radical leftists.

  • June 2, 2013 at 10:49pm

    And don’t drag the body either; leave it lie where it fell. Forensics will probably pick up on the blood trail that the body has been moved. Unfortunately, the law is now on the side of the criminal. It matters who you elect.

  • June 2, 2013 at 10:47pm

    Oh, and don’t listened to VP Joe Biden about firing warning shots with your shotgun (or any other firearm.) His stupid statement just goes to show how out of touch Washington politicians are with the People, and with the laws they make and subject us to, but from which they exempt themselves.

  • June 2, 2013 at 10:43pm

    OlefromMN, I advise you to change your philosphy, because you will surely go to jail for shooting anyone who only crosses your property line. There has to be a clear imminent mortal threat before you can fire; that means they have to have a deadly weapon and mean to use it on you. In some states, the wacky leftists demand that you run, in all cases, away from the assailant, no self-defense allowed. In others, you may defend yourself, but no one else, not wives or children, or anyone but yourself. I told you they were run by crazy liberals. Every state has diffenent rules, so learn yours.

    Having watched a lot of court cases where a innocent shooter has to defend himself, and after listening to arguments of the prosecuting attorneys, be sure you fired only with clear, immediate, imminent mortal threat and he has a visible deadly weapon, that the bad guy is not shot in the back or side (because you are not allowed to fire at fleeing bad guys), fire no warning shots (you must not really fear for your life), and you were allowed to defend yourself in your state, city, or county. I don’t know how long this has been in play, but I recall hearing cases like this only in the late 60′s or 70′s, with the rise of radical liberalism (which now, unfortunately, is mainstream.) There may have been laws on the books earlier than that, but they do not seem to have been enforced until the 70′s.

  • June 2, 2013 at 10:23pm

    I learned from watching Court TV back in the 90′s, when they used to televise real court sessions 24hrs a day, that you have a right to fire your gun/rifle only if you are in imminent mortal danger. If you fire a warning shot, that can be used in court against you; the prosecution will say that since you had time to fire a warning shot, you were not in imminent mortal danger. So, never fire a warning shot.

    I am not an attorney, but I as far as my understanding goes, you can only fire if in imminent mortal danger. You may/can not fire at somebody leaving or fleeing. In other words, you better be sure that the entrance wounds don’t enter the sides of back of the assailant. If an assailant in entering your house, it is best to shoot the assailant only when they are entirely in your house. If the assailant is shot hanging halfway in your window or door, a prosecutor will probabaly claim the “victim” was leaving your house and you will be in hot water. So, don’t shoot them, if necessary to save your life, unless they are completely inside your house. It’s insane, but you have to consider how the DA will look at it. Laws vary in every state, so know your state laws as well. In some, insane liberals have run amock and you not are allowed to defend yourself at all, but must run, no matter what. I’m not sure when the tables were turned on the defender, but as far a I can remember this started in the late 60′s, because I never heard of these kinds of stories until

    Responses (1) +
  • May 21, 2013 at 10:05pm

    To put it in engineering terms, the more complex the device or system, the more things there are to fail, thus there is a higher the probability that the device will fail, and when it fails, in this case, one loses their life or a loved one’s life. Sorry, I pass.

  • May 21, 2013 at 9:25pm

    Who made the decision to live in Tornado Alley, God or a human?

  • May 21, 2013 at 9:16pm

    This is not a new idea. This was proposed during the last gun grab in the 90′s. It never got off the ground because who can rely on it to work flawlessly when you need it. Murphy’s Law will kick in, and it will fail. Why? Because it is man-made and thus prone to error. There’s the old saying, “To err is human, to “f” things up real bad, use a computer.” Who would bet their own life that it would work 100% when needed to save your life? If the police, military, and secret service led by example and used them exclusively first, then maybe I’d try one, but until H freezes over, I wouldn’t buy one.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 21, 2013 at 9:05pm

    Repeal the 16th amendment. It’s the only way to be sure they won’t abuse it. In fact, repeal any and all taxes that enables them to single out individuals they don’t like. Who can trust them ever again? Gone with the wind.

  • May 21, 2013 at 9:02pm

    O’Reilly isn’t a conservative.

  • May 21, 2013 at 9:01pm

    The *only* thing that will straighten this out is the repeal of the 16th amendment, elimination of all property taxes, indeed, the elimination of any tax the government could use to target individuals or its political enemies (as they see them.) While we’re at it, repeal the 17th amendment also.

123 To page: Go