Im Neero

For a fire breathing conservative, you sure do argue like a liberal.

I don't know about online, but I am enrolled in an advanced logic class. That sir, was an ad hominem argument, an informal fallacy. It doesn't help the validity of your argument one bit.

Tungsten, I forgive you. So are you retracting your statement that in the situation in question I have a 50% chance of it not going well for me? (Even though I never did mention what I plan to do in said situation, simply that I did not buy into your "you will spend time in jail"* assertion.) *NOTE-This is not a direct quote. It was just starting to get really, really wordy with all the quotes, and I'm sure that anyone that has looked through this thread can find the statement that I am referencing. Tungsten said it, I quoted it a bunch, just look around, you'll find it. I do not think that my condensation above changed the meaning of the assertion at all, but to avoid accusations of being a ****ing post ****er, I encourage you to go look it up for yourself and draw your own conclusions as to what was and was not said.

You are correct, sir.

You clearly don't understand statistics. The fact that there are only two possible outcomes does not impart an equal likelihood of occurring to each possibility. For example, if I were to put 10 marbles into a bag, 9 of which were red and one of which was green, I would have a 9 out of 10 chance of pulling out a red marble. In other words, the odds would be 90/10 in favor of pulling out a red marble. According to your misguided understanding, I would have a 50/50 chance of pulling a green marble out of the bag, since the marble that I chose at random would be either red, or green. Maybe you should take a class on this, it seems that you have been weeding out some of good information over the years and hanging on to the bad. Your confidence that it's pretty ****ing accurate seems to be somewhat misplaced. If you are still confused on the subject of odds/probability then the Tennessee Board of Regents offers some good online courses on the subject.

Ok, I'll try this a different way. Winning the lottery is 50/50, right?

You still don't understand what I take issue with. I take issue with your notion that (please excuse me if I don't quote the whole thing, at this point everyone knows what I'm referring too.)"you will get to spend some time in a jail cell." Even by insane Tungsten odds, you only have a 50% chance of spending time in a jail cell, and that's even if you shoot at the police when they show up to see what's going on. P.S. How's the quote searching coming there, champ? I notice that you haven't found any of those ideas that you attributed to me anywhere in my posts yet, it might be because they're not there, but you should go back and check to be sure, there's a 50/50 chance.

Could you please go back and find where I advocated telling the police everything on the scene? There is a 50/50 chance that the world will careen into the sun this evening at 6:00 o'clock. It either will happen or it won't. Any third options? I recommend playing the lottery, because by your calculations the odds are looking pretty darn good. You've already conceded that going to jail isn't a certainty, so I've made my point. You have backed off of your statement that " "is erroneous, and we all know it. Even you admitted it. I would quote where you admitted it, but then this post would get really impossible to read seeing as anything less than quoting your entire post results in accusations of being a ******** or whatever it is you were trying to say under those stars on this family-friendly board you run here. Also, please find where I said a) you shouldn't go to an attorney, you're a wimp if you go to an attorney, c) that I will tell the police everything, as mentioned above, and d) that the DA is an all powerful being. And no, having family doesn't count. 23 year olds have families too, but apparently the only credit you want to give me is based on things I have actually experienced first-hand, so that's all the courtesy I am going to extend to you.

You'll probably be stuttering at the time you speak to the police, but you didn't have to mistype to get that point across. So now going to jail isn't something that's going to happen, it's just something they have the right to do? You're well on your way to a reasonable position there, sport

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

50/50? Where on god's green earth did you get that number? Please don't tell me you're one of those people that believes that in any given situation with two possible outcomes the odds are equal that either one will occur? I see you conveniently missed the part of my post where I said that I also have taken classes and focused in on my age. If you're going to dismiss the experience of those that I have learned from and focus on me personally, I'll do the same. How many people have you shot in self-defense? Did you give a statement? Are you in jail? I'm guessing your life experience doesn't give you any more perspective on the matter than mine does. Lawyers aren't magicians, either. Calling a lawyer does not ensure that you will walk free. Hell, a perfectly good shoot doesn't even ensure that you will walk free. Having a good lawyer look over your statement will probably push the odds in your favor, but the same DA that wants to make an example of you for political can still get you. Edit: You didn't quote my entire post, therefore you can't read newspapers.

I've taken classes from former and active duty law enforcement officers as well. Officers that do this stuff on a daily basis. Yes, most of the cases that I mentioned involved the shooter making a statement to the police, who promptly let them go on about their business. At least one of them wasn't even a good shoot in my opinion. It involved an elderly man selling fruit in the parking lot of a bank shooting a robber as he left the bank to get into his car. Another one involved a man who chased a car-jacker that had just robbed his mother across state lines. Neither of these men were held in jail. If your plan involves definitely spending time in jail, it may not be the best plan. Edit: I didn't edit your quote to change the meaning, I edited it to make it clear what statement of yours that I take issue with. Even with what you included in red, it in no way changes the fact that you think spending time in jail is inevitable. When I make a post I make it under the assumption that people have already read your statement, and don't need the entire thing moved down the screen to understand what's going on, but apparently that's too much to assume on here. I will include the entire post from now on when I quote you. From now on when you cite a source for anything I'm looking forward to see whether or not you quote the entire source. I somehow doubt you won't, but I guess it's ok when you do it.

That's quite simply not true. There are news stories about justified shootings in Memphis all the time, and I have never heard of anyone spending any time in jail for it. If that's part of the game to you, then you're playing it wrong.

Did Tchaicovsky write that?

We should be clear on the legal definition of a homicide, for the purposes of this conversation. Unless you poison the guy, or convince the cops that a stranger walked into your house, there will be no question as to whether or not a homicide was committed. A homicide is simply one person killing another. Nothing wrong with a justifiable homicide, though.

So you would suggest something along the lines of "He probably didn't mean me no harm, but I jest figgered he needed shootin."? I'm going to have to go with the wisdom of every HCP trainer I've ever heard of on this one and hang on to my plan of "blurting out" that "he was going to kill me."

Tower, that comment wasn't directed at you, I made a comment and then after reading I realized it was completely irrelevant. Sorry if that came across the wrong way.

I can see where you're coming from, but we'll have to agree. I cannot get behind "they didn't do anything, but they would if they could have" as a reason for them to be imprisoned indefinitely. They never fought against us, they never intended to fight against us, and odds are if we hadn't showed up when we did, they never would have even been in the position to fight us.

Fantastic idea. After that we can round up all the extremist gun owners. For the record though, I do think we should do something about Tom Cruise. If he keeps getting creepier and smugger, there's a definite threat to the common good of humankind.

Edit: Read before responding? Brilliant!

Damn right, and can you blame them? I would too.

So now we're going to round up and arrest every extremist muslim in the world? These guys weren't fighting against us, the military admits this. I will grant that they are probably not to fond of the United States at this point, but I wouldn't be either, and I'm guessing you guys would be none too happy. I stand by my conviction that men should not be sentenced to life imprisonment just because we're not sure what to do with them.

There was a study released recently that said a 164.52 grain .3776 caliber bullet traveling at 1096 fps will consistently penetrate deep enough to reach vital organs of any attacker wearing any clothes without any chance of over-penetration through any material, including drywall, brick, and aluminum foil. The tests indicated that 1-shot stops were achieved 100% of the time when this round was used in a self-defense shooting. Not really. It's all a trade off. I prefer the 230 grain .45acp.

Probably not. You'll most likely be ok if you say "I thought he was going to kill me."

The men in question never took up arms against our country. They were training to fight against the Chinese government, which most of you are none too fond of. The military admits that these men are not enemy combatants, and they have not and will not ever be charged with any criminal action whatsoever. Why should they spend the rest of their lives in prison, exactly?