Discussion in 'OT Bar' started by BoomBoomBoy, Sep 6, 2009.
definitely a fucked up situation
Thats gay. I woulda killed him too if he threw my fucking dishes.
I saw him interviewed several times and he seemed like a douchenozzle.
that poor fucking woman
I hope he doesn't start throwing dishes in prison.
where does it say he threw the dishes?
if he gets off with only paying 15 grand with no jail time...
previous reports, not in this one though.
America! FUCK YEAH!
Thank god he didn't smoke pot or else he would be facing some serious jail time without a doubt.
Those laws blow my mind more than smoking weed . Look at Tommy Chong, dude went to jail and he wasn't even making the bongs he just gave them the right to his image and name.
Laws in this country are absolutely ridiculous.
We need to keep those dangerous druggies off the streets, but kill someone drunk driving and you get 30 days in jail. Shoot someone who broke your dishes and you might not see any jail time at all...pathetic....
But get caught pirating a DVD and you're fucked.
It's sort of funny looking back how hard Joe cool was defending the step-dad in the original thread.
My theory is he got word of the next Tuf being heavyweights and he decided to get some practice in. Too bad bullets beats fine china.
Huge difference between an invited relative getting drunk and argumentative versus a stranger breaking into your house.
I think Joe Cool was semi-trolling that thread. I can't believe he had me hooked for as long as he did.
It's not funny at all. If a professional fighter got violent in my home and I felt threatened, I'd shoot him.
Obviously one of two things happened:
a) the jury got information that none of the news reports gave us, like maybe the stepdad started the fight, or
b) somebody made the jury cry and the ruling had nothing to do with evidence.
I wasn't trolling. I exaggerated my opinion a little bit to make a point, but based on the information available to me, I think it was a legitimate self-defense situation.
But it wasn't a random MMA fighter, it was a step son that was invited over and got a little rowdy while being drunk. From what I recall, the mother said he had already calmed down by the time the step dad got the gun.
In cases like this very small details make a huge difference. I think everyone invisioned a different scenario playing out based on the articles. I saw someone who was belligerent but not a threat, you saw something else.
But my point the whole time was, someone can't just shoot an invited guest because they feel a little threatened. If it was someone breaking in, an immediate threat is assumed and castle law in almost all states allows you to shoot on sight. But on an invited guest its a whole nother story and very small details in how it went down make a big difference. It could have gone either way but I think the fact he shot him AFTER he calmed down made the difference.
If that's what happened, then it was absolutely not a lawful shooting.
Shut the fuck up Joe_Cool you're just a blabbering idiot motherfucker.
I do believe thats what happened. Prolly a big reason he was found guilty.
Or what, you'll ethug me again?