Alright, I'll break this down for you, and suffer through the infinite quote tags and explanations that I'm going to have to give for this to make sense.
I said this:
God forbid some people walk across your land. You better let your dog eat them.
You then said this:
And destroy his property and kill his cattle and break and enter into his house aside from the trespassing.
I then said this:
...So, because some dicks from, like, six years ago, decided to go and be dicks and fuck up some guy's shit, this now means some completely different people six years later are to blame?
This is awesome! You see, I got punched in the eye once by this black kid when I was eight, and it's obviously way too late to track him down and get even now. But by your logic, I can just go sock the next darkie walking down the street, and I can have my amends. Thank you Adciv.
Wait... does this even need an explanation? It's pretty obvious you put the words in your own mouth. I made a point that the guy is over reacting, you said he was doing it to protect his property, I pointed out that his property had only been vandalized once, six years previously - a point that you were obviously willing to ignore for the benefit of your own arguement, so I got a bit snide about things. Kind of like how spikegirl thinks it's effective to smuggle drugs by sending immigrants walking through some desert. Try thinking before you start the rhetoric.
God damn it, now I'm angry at how stupid
some of you are again. I swear, I can't go more than three days on this forum before I have to quit. I mean, I'm willing to argue with people, I'm willing to be wrong, but this is more like a game of whack-a-mole involving intellect. I can do it easily enough, but there's no reward for the effort. Note: This does not necessarily involve people such as Jerm, who has had to deal with the process, and can be both more informative about a process that I have not experienced, while also admitting his own bias. I mean hell, I figure if a person is willing to admit what they don't know, while contributing what they do know, we're all better off. But if you want to spout rhetoric bullshit without having to think things through? Get the fuck out.
And Adciv, the obvious answer here, which perhaps is my fault for assuming it was obvious, is to alert the local authorities regarding the issue. Theoretically, to my knowledge, the only time you have a right to act with force is when the threat is immediate. Some of this may vary by state law, but I'm pretty sure even down in Texas if this rancher actually shot a person, he could still be tried for murder - which does no benefit to himself. Even beyond that, his actions brought a lawsuit against him, a totally bunk and unneeded lawsuit, but one a pain in the ass that could have been avoided all the same.
And even beyond the legal bullshit, is it worth shooting a man because he walked across what is assumed to be unused miles of desert?
Hell man, you put your own damn words and implications in your own mouth. I'm just pointing out what you say.
