SalamendaciousJury acquits delivery driver of main charge in shooting of YouTube prankster
GrimyI know everyone loves when YouTube pranksters get what coming but shooting someone over mild annoyance is never a good thing. This is why america seems fucking nuts to anyone that doesn’t live there.
Somebody approaching you, even though you’re trying to move away and telling them to stop, is not a “mild annoyance”. It’s dangerous because weapons are so freely available. It would be better if they weren’t, but while they are, you shouldn’t do something like this.
It’s not enough to shoot someone in any civilised country.
It’s important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That’s the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.
He wasn’t being chased in a dark alley and stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.
It is in a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.
It’s important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That’s the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.
Yes, I do realise that, and I did realise it when I wrote my initial comment. What is your point? That someone can’t become dangerous towards you if your interaction lasts 30 seconds or less?
He wasn’t being chased in a dark alley and stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.
See, if your point only makes sense due to leaving out important details, it’s not a good point. He wasn’t shot because “someone played loud noises in his face”.
a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.
One of these things is not like the other
Ah yes, let’s circlejerk around the definition of “civilization”.
For the record, I’m not American (thank god!), but this is neither funny nor useful.
girlfreddyIt is factual tho.
Then provide the factual basis. What definition of “civilization” excludes societies with loose gun laws?
They did, right here.
a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.
One of these things is not like the other
Are you trolling, or are you arguing on the level of a three year old?
Words have meanings. They don’t necessarily have one single meaning, but generally words only make sense in the context of commonly-understood definitions. If I make up a new definition, it’s not useful to use it, as long as other people don’t use it.
Now, I can argue that the sky is blurple, and I’m fully correct if I define blurple to be the color of the sky. But you will notice that this sentence doesn’t hold any meaning as long as blurple isn’t a commonly understood definition.
You’re free to show that loose gun laws are commonly understood to be an argument against something being a civilized society. But until you do that, you’re doing what I said earlier: just circlejerking with neither funny nor useful descriptions.
Do you understand now?