Don't egg cars in Columbus or you'll be shot - Page 7 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Likely not a busy street?

It doesn't take much to pull your concentration off the road...and create accidents.

I would imagine the poor driver of the egged car made things a lot more dangerous than the egg-thrower did. Firing a gun while driving a car is a lot harder to do than throwing an egg from the passenger seat.

The guy clearly was not worried about his own safety. If he was, he wouldn't have chased them down.

Azure · 12-04-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I would imagine the poor driver of the egged car made things a lot more dangerous than the egg-thrower did. Firing a gun while driving a car is a lot harder to do than throwing an egg from the passenger seat.

The guy clearly was not worried about his own safety. If he was, he wouldn't have chased them down.

So its alright to throw eggs at moving cars?

I've already pointed out that it was wrong to shoot the kid...why you can't see what the kid did wrong is beyond me.

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

So its alright to throw eggs at moving cars?

I've already pointed out that it was wrong to shoot the kid...why you can't see what the kid did wrong is beyond me.

Why you think I think it was "right" is beyond me. Of course it was wrong. I haven't said otherwise.

What's beyond me is why anyone would hem and haw and suggest anything other than this lunatic is 100% guilty of murdering a child.

Azure · 12-04-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Why you think I think it was "right" is beyond me. Of course it was wrong. I haven't said otherwise.

What's beyond me is why anyone would hem and haw and suggest anything other than this lunatic is 100% guilty of murdering a child.

Did I suggest otherwise?

Maybe you should quit assuming 'stuff' and actually read my posts.

Dion · 12-04-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Why you think I think it was "right" is beyond me. Of course it was wrong. I haven't said otherwise.

I find it funny you'd get upset over someone supposely putting words in your mouth when you did the exact same thing to me.

Carry on.

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Did I suggest otherwise?

Maybe you should quit assuming 'stuff' and actually read my posts.

You have repeatedly brought up how dangerous what the kid did was. We know that. The only assumption I've made is that you believe the dangerous-ness of their act somehow justifies, in even the smallest way, what this lunatic did to that kid. If it doesn't justify it at all, why do you keep insist on repeating it and comparing it to a completely unrelated story about some guy who's car got hit with a beer bottle?

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I find it funny you'd get upset over someone supposely putting words in your mouth when you did the exact same thing to me.

Carry on.

I'm not upset about anyone doing anything. It's a message board.

Azure · 12-04-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You have repeatedly brought up how dangerous what the kid did was. We know that. The only assumption I've made is that you believe the dangerous-ness of their act somehow justifies, in even the smallest way, what this lunatic did to that kid. If it doesn't justify it at all, why do you keep insist on repeating it and comparing it to a completely unrelated story about some guy who's car got hit with a beer bottle?

Because people keep insisting that the shooter was 100% reponsible for what happened.

I don't agree with that...since the kid carried out the act that provoked the shooting.

FlamingLonghorn · 12-04-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Because people keep insisting that the shooter was 100% reponsible for what happened.

I don't agree with that...since the kid carried out the act that provoked the shooting.

I guess, but who knows what could have provoked this guy to shoot somebody? smudged his puma? called him an ass? The shooter is 100% responsible for an uncalled act of violence. The guy could have taken his kids to his parents, stolen the kids eggs and thrown them at him, given him a huge wedgie... those are reasonable responses.... the kid is not .01% at fault for his death the entire fault lays with the ****ing psycho that shot him...

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Because people keep insisting that the shooter was 100% reponsible for what happened.

I don't agree with that...since the kid carried out the act that provoked the shooting.

He was 100% responsible since he's the one who pulled the trigger. Being "provoked" like this is no reason to kill somebody.

The kid wasn't innocent, but the guy with the gun was completely guilty.

If I beat some guy to death with a tire iron because he called me a fag, am I not 100% guilty? I was provoked after all, wasn't I?

Azure · 12-04-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

He was 100% responsible since he's the one who pulled the trigger. Being "provoked" like this is no reason to kill somebody.

The kid wasn't innocent, but the guy with the gun was completely guilty.

If I beat some guy to death with a tire iron because he called me a fag, am I not 100% guilty? I was provoked after all, wasn't I?

By that rate...if someone attacks you...gun or no gun...and you defend yourself...killing the guy in the process...you're 100% responsible...since you pulled the trigger.

Provoking has 'nothing' to do with anything...right?

Winsor_Pilates · 12-04-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Provoking has 'nothing' to do with anything...right?

Provoking has to do with it when the reaction is proportionate to the action. When the reaction is so extreme, the provoking is trivial.

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

By that rate...if someone attacks you...gun or no gun...and you defend yourself...killing the guy in the process...you're 100% responsible...since you pulled the trigger.

Provoking has 'nothing' to do with anything...right?

I'm sure you actually know the difference between being provoked and being attacked.

Nicole · 12-04-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Provoking has to do with it when the reaction is proportionate to the action. When the reaction is so extreme, the provoking is trivial.

I agree ....

Being 'provoked' or not, murder is NEVER the answer. The shooter is 100% responsible. You can't tell me this shooter never did anything stupid as a kid and rather than resort to murdering the poor kid he could handled this situation differently - most likely these kids would have been scared to get caught which is why the were running away when he was chasing them ( I doubt they were thinking he was going to shoot at them, they were probably thinking he was going to give them crap).

I'm interested to see if they catch this guy b/c I have a feeling he is probably some gangster, probably a drug dealer .. why else would he be driving an SUV WITH a gun on him?? Those type of people obviously have absolutely no qualms about killing a person and so the fact that he was so easily able to pull the trigger and kill some young kid for some stupid prank just shows how unemotional and out of touch this shooter most likely is, which is why a gang member comes to mind as the shooter. I could be wrong of course but I wouldn't exactly be shocked if that were the case ... and I have absolutely no sympathy for people like that who make a living by breaking the law and also, I have zero sympathy for a murderer .. provoked or not.

Azure · 12-04-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm sure you actually know the difference between being provoked and being attacked.

So now you're going to decide what is being attacked and what isn't?

Actually forget it...we're just going in circles.

The shooter was wrong...lets leave it at that.

rockstar · 12-04-2006, 09:56 PM

I've read the first page and the last page, and for the most part, it's the same guys, and the same argument.

There is no excuse to shoot someone. Ever. Especially if that someone got egg yolk on your SUV's grill. That's absolutely ludicrous.

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

So now you're going to decide what is being attacked and what isn't?

Yes.

Looger · 12-04-2006, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The kid was looking to get shot?

he was looking for trouble and he found it.

kids like this in years past would simply disappear and end up kidnapped on ship crews or whatever.

now they're martyrs or saints.

whatever.

i leave 'excuses' and 'justified' with everyone else.

go looking, and you will find.

RougeUnderoos · 12-04-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Looger

kids like this in years past would simply disappear and end up kidnapped on ship crews or whatever.

What a strange thing to say.

Kids like this in years past didn't simply disappear or ship crews. If they did, there wouldn't be very many adults.

Looger · 12-04-2006, 10:39 PM

well, i am pretty hammered.

garbage in, garbage out.

'kid was looking to get shot'?

yeah, i haven't answered that four times in this thread...

keep asking the same questions, i guess eventually the answers may get bizarre.