I would rather have someone who stands up for themselves against violent and antisocial behaviour as a neighbour than the violent, antisocial cunts, yes.
I’ve no doubt you’ll pretend you think otherwise, but as usual you would be lying.
What? I though we were having a “make ridiculous, unsupported allegations” competition. There’s no other logical reason for your posts…
This seems quite over the top for a message board discussion. You should probably reevaluate what would cause you to call someone a paedophile.
Right – only blacks attack violently for no reason with no history of violence. Must be that mary-joo-ana, right?
You vile fucking racist.
One would assume that convicted child murderers who shoot at fleeing children would count as “violent” and “antisocial”, but to each his own, I expect.
As a rule spree killers have a reason, however fucked up it might be. Certainly in this case there were plenty of signs that he wasn’t exactly normal, although the full details are unknown and probably unknowable.
Holy shit, thank you for this post. I’ve argued with Shodan before, but I hadn’t realized how utterly despicable he was. This is the kind of shit that changes my opinion of a person from “annoying but probably a decent person under it all” to “a person of irredeemably poor character.”
This has nothing whatsoever to do with race, you’re the only one who’s mentioning it. You are the one fixated on it.
And weed, for that matter. You seem obsessed with that as well.
If the kids “murdered” had been white you’d have been all for it. But Only Black Lives Matter to people like you.
I’m just wondering why you’re such a fan of a convicted child murderer who shot at fleeing children. Seems like a very strange person to admire, especially for someone who posts about opposing violence. One would think that people who truly oppose violence wouldn’t admire convicted child murderers who shoot at fleeing children.
He and I have crossed paths for at least a decade—not just here— and I have been blunt about my PTSD the whole time. He has used variations of this attack repeatedly and I have repeatedly called him out. He just turns around and repeats the same shit over and over. He will not change or listen or grow. He just finds new lies to repeat ad nauseum. He will pointedly avoid addressing criticism, disappearing for a while if he has been especially evil.
He has been attacking women with identical dishonesty for literally decades. I remember seeing him on the Ms. boards in the late 90s, when I was posting from a dodgy internet café in Yalta.
Sure. And Michael Dunn’s reason is that the music was too loud. His sighting of a “fucking shotgun” has no corroborating evidence, yet you believe it, simply based on the word of a convicted murderer.
Strange what you believe.
It’s almost like you’re ignoring the multiple times I’ve explained this to you in this and many other threads. But surely someone like you, who makes such a big deal of arguing in good faith, wouldn’t do such a thing, right?
It’s almost like you’re not the good guy you attempt to play on this and other boards, but are in fact a lying hypocrite.
Because when a white man----and only a white man----says it about a black kid, it MUST be true.
Your explanation makes no sense. Dunn is a proven liar who was convicted of murdering a child and shooting at fleeing children. None of that is remotely admirable. In fact, it’s morally monstrous.
I think that’s obvious to most folks, including the jury, but somehow you find it alien. Maybe you just need to think about it some more.
There’s more evidence of a shotgun than of Kavanaugh assaulting anybody.
Dunn didn’t shoot them because the music was too loud, he asked them to turn it down. Then something happened which caused him to feel it was necessary to shoot.
This murder case, like the Zimmerman case, should never have gotten close to a courtroom, morally speaking. Self defence should be a basic human right.
The “something” that happened was that the child behaved as children sometimes do, refusing to comply with a stranger’s request. So Dunn shot him, and then shot at the other kids who tried to flee.
Thankfully, the jury recognized that Dunn’s testimony was dishonest, and was in direct conflict with the physical evidence and other witness testimony, and they convicted him.
My explanation makes perfect sense. I would rather live near those who stand up to violent, antisocial bullies than near the bullies themselves.
I doubt you’d understand that, though. You may not be exactly a bully yourself but you are a champion gaslighter, and that’s close to it. Just takes more brains and, for all your flaws, you are obviously not stupid.
This woman was disbelieved by the cops and forced to recant, charged, and fined. Her name was published in the paper. The rapist raped more women. He photographed them all with a camera he’d stolen from one of his first victims.
How often does it happen?
In the 5th paragraph, a cop * on the rape squad* says, “I am betting that 9 times out of 10, if she asks for a female detective, the story is untrue.”
Yeah, so…I could go on and on and on, but these guys are fans of the pussygrabber, so…
So you seriously, honestly don’t see someone who shoots at fleeing children as “violent” or “antisocial”?