I thought catefrances was making a suicide reference.
very few people use guns to commit suicide. shooting yourself in the chest is difficult because you have to hit the heart in order to die from the gunshot. that's not easy at all. people don't shoot themselves in the head because it messes up their appearence. oh, i know some people do; but a small percentage. i know 3 people that have committed suicide and they hung themselves. so the family can have open caskets.
note to SS; i didn't know them personally. they were friends of friends and i went to the funeral out of respect.
very few people use guns to commit suicide. shooting yourself in the chest is difficult because you have to hit the heart in order to die from the gunshot. that's not easy at all. people don't shoot themselves in the head because it messes up their appearence. oh, i know some people do; but a small percentage. i know 3 people that have committed suicide and they hung themselves. so the family can have open caskets.
Yeah, I know. But that's just the way I interpreted his post.
i can search thousands of cases where someone was home when their house was invaded; but that's not my point.
my point was; THAT IF YOU'RE WILLING TO ENTER SOMEONES HOME; YOU MUST BE PREPARED IN THE EVENT SOMEONE IS HOME.
i think it's a pretty huge and probably wrong assumption to say that all criminals are rational actors who have thought through their actions and planned for the contingencies. i'd say you've put 1000 times more thought into what you would do if someone broke into your house than the average burglar puts into their plan for a break in. shit, i'd say it's pretty foolish to assume 96% of the population thinks through the consequences of their actions before doing them. most people are fucking idiots. you're talking only about the burglars in 'heat'.
i think it's a pretty huge and probably wrong assumption to say that all criminals are rational actors who have thought through their actions and planned for the contingencies. i'd say you've put 1000 times more thought into what you would do if someone broke into your house than the average burglar puts into their plan for a break in. shit, i'd say it's pretty foolish to assume 96% of the population thinks through the consequences of their actions before doing them. most people are fucking idiots. you're talking only about the burglars in 'heat'.
that's the kind of hogwash i expect from you. one of the biggest problems in the us right now is meth addicts stealing identities. they plan everything to a tee. they'll find out when that person isn't home; and be there when cell phones are delivered. (it happened to a neighbour in phoenix); then do a change of address on the credit card. they'll steal mail and type or print (if printed) "OR".... then put the name of an illegal after the PAY TO on checks. it happened to me; my dad; and many other people i know. i had a drug smuggler steal my identity after my ex-wife gave him my information.
IF CRIMINALS ARE SO STUPID; WHY AREN'T ALL OF THEM CAUGHT?
the bloke in the story was mentally ill yet he brought a weapon with him in case he got any resistance. the brinks heist was well planned. if you look at the FBI's top 10; they got identified yet still have their freedom. look at the bloke who put his gf in a trunk; then fled to france because he knew they wouldn't extradite him. crimes that are not well thought out are solved.
Was there any threat to Horn? No.
There was an immideate threat to this woman, and although I HATE guns, it was within her right to act in self defence.
if you HATE guns; then you must believe she shouldn't have had a gun.
this is what i want to discuss. people who believe others shouldn't have guns or shouldn't kill others. those that said the death penalty was wrong agree that the death penalty was proper in this case without trial. people that said life is precious and we shouldn't kill agreed this man should have been shot dead. and people totally against guns said the shooting was justified.
i'm trying to understand the hypocracy. why is it wrong to have a gun to protect yourself; but it's ok to use a gun to protect yourself?
horn has nothing to do with this thread. it was a completely different situation and circumstance. the story states that many of the neighbours thought she was wrong. that leads to the conclusion that she shouldn't have protected herself. and; if she shouldn't have protected herself; this leads to the conclusion that she should have let him rape her; and possably kill her.
this isn't aimed at you rockin. this is the question i've been trying to get answered.
note to SS: notice his forethought to wear a mask. this shows that his intent wasn't to kill her; or so neighbours didn't recognize him if he was seen.
so; if his intent wasn't to kill her; should she have waited until she knew he was going to kill her?
i picked this case because of these variables. in our criminal justice system; rape is not a bad enough crime to warrant the death penalty; yet everyone (i haven't read 3 or 4 pages yet) agrees she was justified to shoot.
very few people use guns to commit suicide. shooting yourself in the chest is difficult because you have to hit the heart in order to die from the gunshot. that's not easy at all. people don't shoot themselves in the head because it messes up their appearence. oh, i know some people do; but a small percentage. i know 3 people that have committed suicide and they hung themselves. so the family can have open caskets.
note to SS; i didn't know them personally. they were friends of friends and i went to the funeral out of respect.
if someone commits suicide, i would imagine the last thing they are thinking about, is if their family is going to have an 'open casket' or not, and how purdy they will be looking for the day. that's just my opinion though.
also, you don't have to hit the heart to die from a gunshot wound to the chest. whether a gunshot wound is fatal depends on the type of gun used, the distance from which the bullet was fired and where on the body the victim was hit, it also depends on the speed at which the bullet travels and enters the body, the angle at which it hits the body, and the density of the tissue involved.
if it's a perforating injury (where the bullet exits the body) and especially if blood vessel is hit (doesn't have to be a main organ) then that's when you are in real trouble.
if someone commits suicide, i would imagine the last thing they are thinking about, is if their family is going to have an 'open casket' or not, and how purdy they will be looking for the day. that's just my opinion though.
also, you don't have to hit the heart to die from a gunshot wound to the chest. whether a gunshot wound is fatal depends on the type of gun used, the distance from which the bullet was fired and where on the body the victim was hit, it also depends on the speed at which the bullet travels and enters the body, the angle at which it hits the body, and the density of the tissue involved.
if it's a perforating injury (where the bullet exits the body) and especially if blood vessel is hit (doesn't have to be a main organ) then that's when you are in real trouble.
g'morning gurl you're mostly right. the people that committed suicide and i attended the funeral; did leave notes with instructions for their funerals. all requested open caskets and it was gross. the mortition did his best to cover-up the hanging effects but they should have been closed.
with any weapon; it's the amount of bleeding that kills the person. a stab wound usually isn't fatal yet if you cut the person the bleeding is harder to stop and harder to stich; so it's most likely fatal. if i shoot someone in the chest with my .44 with hollow points; chances are it'll be fatal. if i shoot myself at the range consistant with suicide; the bullet would probably pass through my body before being able to expand and do a lot of tissue damage. and at that close range; almost any bullet will pass through. if you want to die instantly you have to hit the heart; or the brain; and nobody wants to suffer.
all in all; you have to hit an artery for a gunshot wound to be fatal.
that's the kind of hogwash i expect from you. one of the biggest problems in the us right now is meth addicts stealing identities. they plan everything to a tee. they'll find out when that person isn't home; and be there when cell phones are delivered. (it happened to a neighbour in phoenix); then do a change of address on the credit card. they'll steal mail and type or print (if printed) "OR".... then put the name of an illegal after the PAY TO on checks. it happened to me; my dad; and many other people i know. i had a drug smuggler steal my identity after my ex-wife gave him my information.
IF CRIMINALS ARE SO STUPID; WHY AREN'T ALL OF THEM CAUGHT?
the bloke in the story was mentally ill yet he brought a weapon with him in case he got any resistance. the brinks heist was well planned. if you look at the FBI's top 10; they got identified yet still have their freedom. look at the bloke who put his gf in a trunk; then fled to france because he knew they wouldn't extradite him. crimes that are not well thought out are solved.
you see, your ex-wife is a fucking idiot to give your information to a drug smuggler.
criminals get away becos when a crackhead kicks down the door, grabs your stereo and petty cash, and runs... nobody will EVER find or id him. he didn't plan that. do you truly think that the vast majority of unsolved crimes are the result of lex luthor-style criminal masterminds?
as to the rest... you're telling me meth heads sit around neighborhoods trying to guess when a cellphone will arrive in the mail, grab the package, use it to make a phone call they could have made easily otherwise (there are security passwords when i call my credit card company, they use those, not caller id).
i had somebody cash one of those checks they mail you too. it took a month or two, but the credit card company took it off and no big deal.
if someone commits suicide, i would imagine the last thing they are thinking about, is if their family is going to have an 'open casket' or not, and how purdy they will be looking for the day. that's just my opinion though.
also, you don't have to hit the heart to die from a gunshot wound to the chest. whether a gunshot wound is fatal depends on the type of gun used, the distance from which the bullet was fired and where on the body the victim was hit, it also depends on the speed at which the bullet travels and enters the body, the angle at which it hits the body, and the density of the tissue involved.
if it's a perforating injury (where the bullet exits the body) and especially if blood vessel is hit (doesn't have to be a main organ) then that's when you are in real trouble.
beg to differ. thinking about your funeral is an integral part of the suicide thought process.
I am not for guns and believe that this lady did what she did because she was allowed to own a gun. She did the right thing in the circumstance she was in. Dosen't mean I want guns legal for anybody to carry. Say that same lady thought I was a threat on the street for no reason other then her own mind telling her that and decided to pull the trigger in fear of what she thought I was going to do.
Anyway, I would be applauding this lady if she plunged a pair of scissors in his chest, took a knife to him, kneed him in his balls and then proceeded to stab him to death with the knife he dropped, or took him by the back of the neck and bashed his head to a mushy pulp off of her walls.
this is what i want to discuss. people who believe others shouldn't have guns or shouldn't kill others. those that said the death penalty was wrong agree that the death penalty was proper in this case without trial.
You cannot compare the death penalty and a situation like this. He did not get the death penalty, she shot him in self defense.
people that said life is precious and we shouldn't kill agreed this man should have been shot dead. and people totally against guns said the shooting was justified.
Life is precious and we shouldn't kill, I think in this situation she protected herself. In my opinion, it would have been better if he were still alive especially considering his mental condition.
I don't think he deserved to die. I do think she should not be punished for her actions.
i'm trying to understand the hypocracy. why is it wrong to have a gun to protect yourself; but it's ok to use a gun to protect yourself?
I'm against guns. I'm not against defending yourself. She had a gun, guns are legal where she lives. No hypocracy here.
i picked this case because of these variables. in our criminal justice system; rape is not a bad enough crime to warrant the death penalty; yet everyone (i haven't read 3 or 4 pages yet) agrees she was justified to shoot.
Again, killing someone in self defense does not equal death penalty.
you see, your ex-wife is a fucking idiot to give your information to a drug smuggler.
criminals get away becos when a crackhead kicks down the door, grabs your stereo and petty cash, and runs... nobody will EVER find or id him. he didn't plan that. do you truly think that the vast majority of unsolved crimes are the result of lex luthor-style criminal masterminds?
as to the rest... you're telling me meth heads sit around neighborhoods trying to guess when a cellphone will arrive in the mail, grab the package, use it to make a phone call they could have made easily otherwise (there are security passwords when i call my credit card company, they use those, not caller id).
i had somebody cash one of those checks they mail you too. it took a month or two, but the credit card company took it off and no big deal.
my ex tried pulling something; now the FBI is investigating her; her attorney; and a judge. you don't mess with me!
meth heads did it in my neighbourhood. evidently; a newly activated phone sells for a good days worth of meth. they've got nothing better to do so they waited for ups.
when you order from a new company; you set the passwords.
You cannot compare the death penalty and a situation like this. He did not get the death penalty, she shot him in self defense.
Life is precious and we shouldn't kill, I think in this situation she protected herself. In my opinion, it would have been better if he were still alive especially considering his mental condition.
I don't think he deserved to die. I do think she should not be punished for her actions.
I'm against guns. I'm not against defending yourself. She had a gun, guns are legal where she lives. No hypocracy here.
Again, killing someone in self defense does not equal death penalty.
she punished him for his actions. she thought; and deciided his punishment would be death. how is that any different than state sanctioned murder?
she punished him for his actions. she thought; and deciided his punishment would be death. how is that any different than state sanctioned murder?
Her life was in danger, she reacted in self-defence and she did so with the means she had, in this case a gun. The result was she killed this man.
I don't think her objective was punishing this man for his crime, but rather protecting herself from this man.
Self-defence means protecting yourself from someone who wants to cause you harm. It does not mean you have the right be be judge, jury and executioner.
Her life was in danger, she reacted in self-defence and she did so with the means she had, in this case a gun. The result was she killed this man.
I don't think her objective was punishing this man for his crime, but rather protecting herself from this man.
Self-defence means protecting yourself from someone who wants to cause you harm. It does not mean you have the right be be judge, jury and executioner.
you're missing the point. she WAS judge jury and executioner. you can twist it any way you want; but bottom line is that she was willing to kill someone when she accepted that gun into her house. she loaded it knowing it was to kill someone. and she kept it loaded at her bedside so she had easy access to kill someone. that sounds premeditated to me. she had almost everything she needed to kill someone at her fingertips........ just add the victim.
when we lock up a violent criminal; it's because he puts the public in danger. so if the state kills him; they are saving the lives of innocent victims.
so again i ask; how is that different from state sanctioned killing?
so again i ask; how is that different from state sanctioned killing?
You can come into my house and I just don't plain like you and shoot you and you die. And then I say you broke into my house and I protected myself. There is a huge difference between defending yourself, being a vigilante and the court system. How can you not see that?
you're missing the point. she WAS judge jury and executioner. you can twist it any way you want; but bottom line is that she was willing to kill someone when she accepted that gun into her house. she loaded it knowing it was to kill someone. and she kept it loaded at her bedside so she had easy access to kill someone. that sounds premeditated to me. she had almost everything she needed to kill someone at her fingertips........ just add the victim.
when we lock up a violent criminal; it's because he puts the public in danger. so if the state kills him; they are saving the lives of innocent victims.
so again i ask; how is that different from state sanctioned killing?
"The State" is a collective of the people. The Department of Justice is a branch of that.
you're missing the point. she WAS judge jury and executioner. you can twist it any way you want; but bottom line is that she was willing to kill someone when she accepted that gun into her house. she loaded it knowing it was to kill someone. and she kept it loaded at her bedside so she had easy access to kill someone. that sounds premeditated to me. she had almost everything she needed to kill someone at her fingertips........ just add the victim.
Just add the victim? She was the victim, she protected herself and it resulted in her attacker's death.
when we lock up a violent criminal; it's because he puts the public in danger. so if the state kills him; they are saving the lives of innocent victims.
so again i ask; how is that different from state sanctioned killing?
You can come into my house and I just don't plain like you and shoot you and you die. And then I say you broke into my house and I protected myself. There is a huge difference between defending yourself, being a vigilante and the court system. How can you not see that?
maybe that's what happened here and she only said he held a knife to her throat? we only have her word about what really happened. maybe they were lovers and he was breaking it off.
So, basically, her head is shaped like the capital building dome, and her arm has the look of the judge's hammer...
Q: You know, I'm getting this strange idea, knowing OLS's likes and dislikes, this woman has really turned him on. What do you think?
A: Oh yeah, this is the kind of woman that really charges his blood.
Q: So all this talk about judge, jury and executioner is really just an abstract of a sexual fantasy he's having?
A: Quite possibly.
Q: Thank you doctor drug store quack.
A: no problem.
She did not give him a trial, nor a conviction and she didn't execute him.
And you're a lawyer?
i'm trying to find justice for the poor dead guy with the brain tumor. he wasn't responsable for his actions. he wasn't in control of his mind. she; on the other hand; was ready to kill. i wonder if she was loaded with hollow points for a sure kill. were they full load (maximum gunpowder)? how did she hit this {assumed} moving target in the dark? she must have prepared for her chance to kill someone.
Q: You know, I'm getting this strange idea, knowing OLS's likes and dislikes, this woman has really turned him on. What do you think?
A: Oh yeah, this is the kind of woman that really charges his blood.
Q: So all this talk about judge, jury and executioner is really just an abstract of a sexual fantasy he's having?
A: Quite possibly.
Q: Thank you doctor drug store quack.
A: no problem.
Q: You know, I'm getting this strange idea, knowing OLS's likes and dislikes, this woman has really turned him on. What do you think?
A: Oh yeah, this is the kind of woman that really charges his blood.
Q: So all this talk about judge, jury and executioner is really just an abstract of a sexual fantasy he's having?
A: Quite possibly.
Q: Thank you doctor drug store quack.
A: no problem.
you should be ashamed gue. i'm presenting arguments that would be brought forth in a wrongful death trial. i thought you were smart enough to catch that.
i'm trying to find justice for the poor dead guy with the brain tumor. he wasn't responsable for his actions. he wasn't in control of his mind. she; on the other hand; was ready to kill. i wonder if she was loaded with hollow points for a sure kill. were they full load (maximum gunpowder)? how did she hit this {assumed} moving target in the dark? she must have prepared for her chance to kill someone.
It's a sad case, indeed. Like I said before I don't think he deserved to die.
i'm trying to find justice for the poor dead guy with the brain tumor. he wasn't responsable for his actions. he wasn't in control of his mind. she; on the other hand; was ready to kill. i wonder if she was loaded with hollow points for a sure kill. were they full load (maximum gunpowder)? how did she hit this {assumed} moving target in the dark? she must have prepared for her chance to kill someone.
If it were a dog with rabies that entered her room with bad intent, would it be any different?
She isn't being brought up on any charges. Are you trying to suggest she lured him in somehow?
Comments
i don't mean to get personal; but were you attacked? why would you have to pull the trigger in the first place?
I thought catefrances was making a suicide reference.
very few people use guns to commit suicide. shooting yourself in the chest is difficult because you have to hit the heart in order to die from the gunshot. that's not easy at all. people don't shoot themselves in the head because it messes up their appearence. oh, i know some people do; but a small percentage. i know 3 people that have committed suicide and they hung themselves. so the family can have open caskets.
note to SS; i didn't know them personally. they were friends of friends and i went to the funeral out of respect.
Yeah, I know. But that's just the way I interpreted his post.
Maybe I'm wrong and that's not what cat meant.
i think it's a pretty huge and probably wrong assumption to say that all criminals are rational actors who have thought through their actions and planned for the contingencies. i'd say you've put 1000 times more thought into what you would do if someone broke into your house than the average burglar puts into their plan for a break in. shit, i'd say it's pretty foolish to assume 96% of the population thinks through the consequences of their actions before doing them. most people are fucking idiots. you're talking only about the burglars in 'heat'.
that's the kind of hogwash i expect from you. one of the biggest problems in the us right now is meth addicts stealing identities. they plan everything to a tee. they'll find out when that person isn't home; and be there when cell phones are delivered. (it happened to a neighbour in phoenix); then do a change of address on the credit card. they'll steal mail and type or print (if printed) "OR".... then put the name of an illegal after the PAY TO on checks. it happened to me; my dad; and many other people i know. i had a drug smuggler steal my identity after my ex-wife gave him my information.
IF CRIMINALS ARE SO STUPID; WHY AREN'T ALL OF THEM CAUGHT?
the bloke in the story was mentally ill yet he brought a weapon with him in case he got any resistance. the brinks heist was well planned. if you look at the FBI's top 10; they got identified yet still have their freedom. look at the bloke who put his gf in a trunk; then fled to france because he knew they wouldn't extradite him. crimes that are not well thought out are solved.
if you HATE guns; then you must believe she shouldn't have had a gun.
this is what i want to discuss. people who believe others shouldn't have guns or shouldn't kill others. those that said the death penalty was wrong agree that the death penalty was proper in this case without trial. people that said life is precious and we shouldn't kill agreed this man should have been shot dead. and people totally against guns said the shooting was justified.
i'm trying to understand the hypocracy. why is it wrong to have a gun to protect yourself; but it's ok to use a gun to protect yourself?
horn has nothing to do with this thread. it was a completely different situation and circumstance. the story states that many of the neighbours thought she was wrong. that leads to the conclusion that she shouldn't have protected herself. and; if she shouldn't have protected herself; this leads to the conclusion that she should have let him rape her; and possably kill her.
this isn't aimed at you rockin. this is the question i've been trying to get answered.
note to SS: notice his forethought to wear a mask. this shows that his intent wasn't to kill her; or so neighbours didn't recognize him if he was seen.
so; if his intent wasn't to kill her; should she have waited until she knew he was going to kill her?
i picked this case because of these variables. in our criminal justice system; rape is not a bad enough crime to warrant the death penalty; yet everyone (i haven't read 3 or 4 pages yet) agrees she was justified to shoot.
also, you don't have to hit the heart to die from a gunshot wound to the chest. whether a gunshot wound is fatal depends on the type of gun used, the distance from which the bullet was fired and where on the body the victim was hit, it also depends on the speed at which the bullet travels and enters the body, the angle at which it hits the body, and the density of the tissue involved.
if it's a perforating injury (where the bullet exits the body) and especially if blood vessel is hit (doesn't have to be a main organ) then that's when you are in real trouble.
g'morning gurl
with any weapon; it's the amount of bleeding that kills the person. a stab wound usually isn't fatal yet if you cut the person the bleeding is harder to stop and harder to stich; so it's most likely fatal. if i shoot someone in the chest with my .44 with hollow points; chances are it'll be fatal. if i shoot myself at the range consistant with suicide; the bullet would probably pass through my body before being able to expand and do a lot of tissue damage. and at that close range; almost any bullet will pass through. if you want to die instantly you have to hit the heart; or the brain; and nobody wants to suffer.
all in all; you have to hit an artery for a gunshot wound to be fatal.
you see, your ex-wife is a fucking idiot to give your information to a drug smuggler.
criminals get away becos when a crackhead kicks down the door, grabs your stereo and petty cash, and runs... nobody will EVER find or id him. he didn't plan that. do you truly think that the vast majority of unsolved crimes are the result of lex luthor-style criminal masterminds?
as to the rest... you're telling me meth heads sit around neighborhoods trying to guess when a cellphone will arrive in the mail, grab the package, use it to make a phone call they could have made easily otherwise (there are security passwords when i call my credit card company, they use those, not caller id).
i had somebody cash one of those checks they mail you too. it took a month or two, but the credit card company took it off and no big deal.
beg to differ. thinking about your funeral is an integral part of the suicide thought process.
Anyway, I would be applauding this lady if she plunged a pair of scissors in his chest, took a knife to him, kneed him in his balls and then proceeded to stab him to death with the knife he dropped, or took him by the back of the neck and bashed his head to a mushy pulp off of her walls.
You cannot compare the death penalty and a situation like this. He did not get the death penalty, she shot him in self defense.
Life is precious and we shouldn't kill, I think in this situation she protected herself. In my opinion, it would have been better if he were still alive especially considering his mental condition.
I don't think he deserved to die. I do think she should not be punished for her actions.
I'm against guns. I'm not against defending yourself. She had a gun, guns are legal where she lives. No hypocracy here.
Again, killing someone in self defense does not equal death penalty.
naděje umírá poslední
my ex tried pulling something; now the FBI is investigating her; her attorney; and a judge. you don't mess with me!
meth heads did it in my neighbourhood. evidently; a newly activated phone sells for a good days worth of meth. they've got nothing better to do so they waited for ups.
when you order from a new company; you set the passwords.
she punished him for his actions. she thought; and deciided his punishment would be death. how is that any different than state sanctioned murder?
Her life was in danger, she reacted in self-defence and she did so with the means she had, in this case a gun. The result was she killed this man.
I don't think her objective was punishing this man for his crime, but rather protecting herself from this man.
Self-defence means protecting yourself from someone who wants to cause you harm. It does not mean you have the right be be judge, jury and executioner.
naděje umírá poslední
you're missing the point. she WAS judge jury and executioner. you can twist it any way you want; but bottom line is that she was willing to kill someone when she accepted that gun into her house. she loaded it knowing it was to kill someone. and she kept it loaded at her bedside so she had easy access to kill someone. that sounds premeditated to me. she had almost everything she needed to kill someone at her fingertips........ just add the victim.
when we lock up a violent criminal; it's because he puts the public in danger. so if the state kills him; they are saving the lives of innocent victims.
so again i ask; how is that different from state sanctioned killing?
You can come into my house and I just don't plain like you and shoot you and you die. And then I say you broke into my house and I protected myself. There is a huge difference between defending yourself, being a vigilante and the court system. How can you not see that?
"The State" is a collective of the people. The Department of Justice is a branch of that.
You're being bored again.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Just add the victim? She was the victim, she protected herself and it resulted in her attacker's death.
A trial and a conviction.
naděje umírá poslední
isn't the victim the dead guy? he was murdered.
she gave him a trial and conviction too. she even executed him.
So, basically, her head is shaped like the capital building dome, and her arm has the look of the judge's hammer...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
maybe that's what happened here and she only said he held a knife to her throat? we only have her word about what really happened. maybe they were lovers and he was breaking it off.
That's ridiculous.
She did not give him a trial, nor a conviction and she didn't execute him.
And you're a lawyer?
naděje umírá poslední
A: Oh yeah, this is the kind of woman that really charges his blood.
Q: So all this talk about judge, jury and executioner is really just an abstract of a sexual fantasy he's having?
A: Quite possibly.
Q: Thank you doctor drug store quack.
A: no problem.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i'm trying to find justice for the poor dead guy with the brain tumor. he wasn't responsable for his actions. he wasn't in control of his mind. she; on the other hand; was ready to kill. i wonder if she was loaded with hollow points for a sure kill. were they full load (maximum gunpowder)? how did she hit this {assumed} moving target in the dark? she must have prepared for her chance to kill someone.
naděje umírá poslední
you should be ashamed gue. i'm presenting arguments that would be brought forth in a wrongful death trial. i thought you were smart enough to catch that.
It's a sad case, indeed. Like I said before I don't think he deserved to die.
naděje umírá poslední
If it were a dog with rabies that entered her room with bad intent, would it be any different?
She isn't being brought up on any charges. Are you trying to suggest she lured him in somehow?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.