New virus from shithole China

[billy the kid]

A BUG is a Back Up Gun. She carries 2. I married a very sexy and lethal woman.

We can shoot anybody to stop the commission of armed robbery, rape, arson, kidnapping, aggravated assault, or murder. We also have the right to use deadly force on anybody who forcibly enters an occupied dwelling or vehicle. Laws vary from state to state, but that's the law in Texas. I can't shoot someone who grabs my TP and runs(and I wouldn't want to kill somebody over that anyway), but if they produce a weapon then they are threatening my life and I can defend myself with deadly force. I don't want to hurt anybody, but I love that it's a deterrent.

Here is something that will really blow your mind. If 2 armed thugs try to rob me and I shoot and kill one. The other robber will be tried for the murder of the first robber. That happened in Oklahoma a couple of years ago. 3 teens with knives and brass knuckles broke into the wrong house to rob them. The adult son of the homeowner killed all 3 with an AR-15. The girl who was driving the getaway vehicle is being tried for 3 murders and is facing the death penalty.

How do they prove the girl had mens rea for the "murder" of her accomplices by someone else.....

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but since she is an accomplice in the commission of a felony, she is responsible for the deaths of the others. If only 1 had been killed, the other 3 would have been tried for his death. I forget the name of the law.

The victim wasn't charged for using deadly force in self defense of his home.

The prosecution would have to prove that she had mens rea for the murder of the accomplices...(ie the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime....the accomplice has no mental intent to murder her own accomplices....)
If an innocent bystander was killed during the breakin...yes...charge her....but her accomplices are all dead...)
Ill go out on a limb and say that this dog wont chase...she'll get off...….

Not in Texas or Oklahoma. The 3 deaths are a result of the commission of a felony by all 4 people. She is the only one left alive to try. She willingly participated in the crime that caused the deaths. She confessed to willingly participating. It will be a slam dunk case and the only thing to decide is the punishment.

You guys have some weird laws in the USA...this one is absolutely ludicrous...one may ask why the law only exists
in two states...maybe because it totally throws out the need to prove mens rea.....The law virtually says that
she is guilty of the murder of her three accomplices...
What if the three accomplices were shot at by the home owner, but escaped...is she now guilty of attempted
murder....the mind boggles....ludicrous...but what else would you expect in the USA....
You say she confessed to willingly participating...in the breakin...or the murder....why would she confess
to willingly participating in a murder...its not even murder...its an act of self defence by the home owner...
How can the same act of killing by the homeowner in self defence be changed to murder by another person...
Ita gets more ludicrous by the minute......

[Texan]

How do they prove the girl had mens rea for the "murder" of her accomplices by someone else.....

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but since she is an accomplice in the commission of a felony, she is responsible for the deaths of the others. If only 1 had been killed, the other 3 would have been tried for his death. I forget the name of the law.

The victim wasn't charged for using deadly force in self defense of his home.

The prosecution would have to prove that she had mens rea for the murder of the accomplices...(ie the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime....the accomplice has no mental intent to murder her own accomplices....)
If an innocent bystander was killed during the breakin...yes...charge her....but her accomplices are all dead...)
Ill go out on a limb and say that this dog wont chase...she'll get off...….

Not in Texas or Oklahoma. The 3 deaths are a result of the commission of a felony by all 4 people. She is the only one left alive to try. She willingly participated in the crime that caused the deaths. She confessed to willingly participating. It will be a slam dunk case and the only thing to decide is the punishment.

You guys have some weird laws in the USA...this one is absolutely ludicrous...one may ask why the law only exists
in two states...maybe because it totally throws out the need to prove mens rea.....The law virtually says that
she is guilty of the murder of her three accomplices...
What if the three accomplices were shot at by the home owner, but escaped...is she now guilty of attempted
murder....the mind boggles....ludicrous...but what else would you expect in the USA....

What's so ludicrous about this law? Are the lives of the criminal not valuable? If a criminal gets himself killed, blame the criminal. If a group of criminals get one of them killed, blame the entire group of criminals. Who should get the blame for the death?

I'm sure it exists in many other states. The leaders of some states may not agree with this and that's fine, but I don't see it as a bad thing. Most crimes are enforced at the state level. We are a confederation of many states. States was originally intended as separate nations with a common cooperation for mutual advancement. The Civil War kind of led to a more powerful federal government than was originally intended.

[brian ross]

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but since she is an accomplice in the commission of a felony, she is responsible for the deaths of the others. If only 1 had been killed, the other 3 would have been tried for his death. I forget the name of the law.

The victim wasn't charged for using deadly force in self defense of his home.

The prosecution would have to prove that she had mens rea for the murder of the accomplices...(ie the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime....the accomplice has no mental intent to murder her own accomplices....)
If an innocent bystander was killed during the breakin...yes...charge her....but her accomplices are all dead...)
Ill go out on a limb and say that this dog wont chase...she'll get off...….

Not in Texas or Oklahoma. The 3 deaths are a result of the commission of a felony by all 4 people. She is the only one left alive to try. She willingly participated in the crime that caused the deaths. She confessed to willingly participating. It will be a slam dunk case and the only thing to decide is the punishment.

You guys have some weird laws in the USA...this one is absolutely ludicrous...one may ask why the law only exists
in two states...maybe because it totally throws out the need to prove mens rea.....The law virtually says that
she is guilty of the murder of her three accomplices...
What if the three accomplices were shot at by the home owner, but escaped...is she now guilty of attempted
murder....the mind boggles....ludicrous...but what else would you expect in the USA....

What's so ludicrous about this law? Are the lives of the criminal not valuable? If a criminal gets himself killed, blame the criminal. If a group of criminals get one of them killed, blame the entire group of criminals. Who should get the blame for the death?

Downunder, everybody has rights and that includes not be killed unlawfully by anybody. As a consequence the criminal's death would be counted as murder or man's slaughter against the person who killed them. The Police would charge them as such and they would go before the court to argue the legality of what they did, Tex. No "Wild West" laws downunder.

[billy the kid]

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but since she is an accomplice in the commission of a felony, she is responsible for the deaths of the others. If only 1 had been killed, the other 3 would have been tried for his death. I forget the name of the law.

The victim wasn't charged for using deadly force in self defense of his home.

The prosecution would have to prove that she had mens rea for the murder of the accomplices...(ie the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime....the accomplice has no mental intent to murder her own accomplices....)
If an innocent bystander was killed during the breakin...yes...charge her....but her accomplices are all dead...)
Ill go out on a limb and say that this dog wont chase...she'll get off...….

Not in Texas or Oklahoma. The 3 deaths are a result of the commission of a felony by all 4 people. She is the only one left alive to try. She willingly participated in the crime that caused the deaths. She confessed to willingly participating. It will be a slam dunk case and the only thing to decide is the punishment.

You guys have some weird laws in the USA...this one is absolutely ludicrous...one may ask why the law only exists
in two states...maybe because it totally throws out the need to prove mens rea.....The law virtually says that
she is guilty of the murder of her three accomplices...
What if the three accomplices were shot at by the home owner, but escaped...is she now guilty of attempted
murder....the mind boggles....ludicrous...but what else would you expect in the USA....

What's so ludicrous about this law? Are the lives of the criminal not valuable? If a criminal gets himself killed, blame the criminal. If a group of criminals get one of them killed, blame the entire group of criminals. Who should get the blame for the death?

Why isn't the law in existence in every state of the USA...could it be because its ludicrous/controversial...whatever
adjective you wish to use....she has no mens rea for a murder of her accomplices....end of story....

[billy the kid]

You say she confessed to willingly participating...in the breakin...or the murder....why would she confess
to willingly participating in a murder...its not even murder...its an act of self defence by the home owner...
How can the same act of killing by the homeowner in self defence be changed to murder by another person...
Ita gets more ludicrous by the minute......

[Texan]

You say she confessed to willingly participating...in the breakin...or the murder....why would she confess
to willingly participating in a murder...its not even murder...its an act of self defence by the home owner...
How can the same act of killing by the homeowner in self defence be changed to murder by another person...
Ita gets more ludicrous by the minute......

Because the death wasn't caused by the use of self defense. The death was caused by the results of felony which all criminal parties agreed to engage in. All criminal parties are responsible for the reaction of the victim as long as his reaction is lawful.

The only time this is not true is if the victim injures or kills an innocent bystander. The armed defender is responsible for every bullet that leaves his gun. It's an awesome responsibility and not to be taken lightly.

I don't think this is anything we will end up agreeing on, and that's OK. You don't like some of my laws and I don't like some of yours. It is what it is and I'm happy if you are.

[Bobby]

I told my wife about the TP rioting in Australia and she went and bought a megapack.

Don't tell too many people -
if you have a truckload of toilet rolls you'll be a target for armed looters.

Once the Negros find out you'll be easy prey for a home invasion.



https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/health ... 3452461306


In Hong Kong, fears about a shortage is believed to be behind an armed robbery where three men allegedly stole 600 rolls of toilet paper.

We're not easy prey for anybody. My wife even carries a BUG.

Is a BUG a gun?

You can't shoot people over a toilet roll.

A BUG is a Back Up Gun. She carries 2. I married a very sexy and lethal woman.

We can shoot anybody to stop the commission of armed robbery, rape, arson, kidnapping, aggravated assault, or murder. We also have the right to use deadly force on anybody who forcibly enters an occupied dwelling or vehicle. Laws vary from state to state, but that's the law in Texas. I can't shoot someone who grabs my TP and runs(and I wouldn't want to kill somebody over that anyway), but if they produce a weapon then they are threatening my life and I can defend myself with deadly force. I don't want to hurt anybody, but I love that it's a deterrent.

Here is something that will really blow your mind. If 2 armed thugs try to rob me and I shoot and kill one. The other robber will be tried for the murder of the first robber. That happened in Oklahoma a couple of years ago. 3 teens with knives and brass knuckles broke into the wrong house to rob them. The adult son of the homeowner killed all 3 with an AR-15. The girl who was driving the getaway vehicle is being tried for 3 murders and is facing the death penalty.

You'll be able to defend your toilet paper -
you've got it all worked out.

[BigP]

I told my wife about the TP rioting in Australia and she went and bought a megapack.

Don't tell too many people -
if you have a truckload of toilet rolls you'll be a target for armed looters.

Once the Negros find out you'll be easy prey for a home invasion.



https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/health ... 3452461306


In Hong Kong, fears about a shortage is believed to be behind an armed robbery where three men allegedly stole 600 rolls of toilet paper.

We're not easy prey for anybody. My wife even carries a BUG.

Is a BUG a gun?

You can't shoot people over a toilet roll.

Watch out Bobby, Them Negros might come roun yo house take a shit in ya bog not flush and wipe their big fat hoe asses on yur bed linen then steal all ya bog paper,,

[billy the kid]

You say she confessed to willingly participating...in the breakin...or the murder....why would she confess
to willingly participating in a murder...its not even murder...its an act of self defence by the home owner...
How can the same act of killing by the homeowner in self defence be changed to murder by another person...
Ita gets more ludicrous by the minute......

Because the death wasn't caused by the use of self defense. The death was caused by the results of felony which all criminal parties agreed to engage in. All criminal parties are responsible for the reaction of the victim as long as his reaction is lawful.

The only time this is not true is if the victim injures or kills an innocent bystander. The armed defender is responsible for every bullet that leaves his gun. It's an awesome responsibility and not to be taken lightly.

I don't think this is anything we will end up agreeing on, and that's OK. You don't like some of my laws and I don't like some of yours. It is what it is and I'm happy if you are.

[Bobby]

Watch out Bobby, Them Negros might come roun yo house take a shit in ya bog not flush and wipe their big fat hoe asses on yur bed linen then steal all ya bog paper,,

Them niggras is brave and getting braver.