Featured Comments
We obviously need imperial federal government background checks on everyone before they are allowed to buy a car.
Comments
Some of those chuckleheads need a sign that says "We were ok with socialism and fascism when our team was in power!"
BINGO sr71v3!
It wasn't only a common practice in our history, jury nullification STILL IS your DUTY as juror. You are to judge the law as well as the facts.
If the law is an immoral and unjust law, the facts go out the window, you should pronounce the defendent NOT GUILTY.
We are NOT to do as some among us believe and simply bow down before the government, kiss their feet and accept everything their filthy politician hands write down on paper as law.
No I do not believe in "the" laws (meaning all of them) that the criminal government passes.
Anyone that sides with that criminal government and wants to put someone in a cage that was defending himself against a violent attack is a bootlicker in my book.
I never questioned your maturity. I just called you ignorant. And instantly labeling anyone that believes in self defense and the 2nd amendment as a hillbilly is ignorant.
I never stated that anyone deserved to die. I only stated that the person that was attacked violently deserves to defend himself until he KNOWS he has ended the threat on his life.
You people have some gumption to sit safely in your home or workplace typing away that you know what could be going through that pharamcist's head after he went in an instant from minding his own business peacefully doing his job to being violently attacked by thugs, to know that the attacker was no longer a threat as if you have some magic power to KNOW he was unconcious or dead, to KNOW that even if he was unconcious that he wouldn't regain consciousness, or to know the one thug leaving the store wasn't retrieving ammo, weapons or more thugs.
It's a big claim to sit there with no idea of what it's like to be in that situation, and better know what he, the one being violently attacked, should have done, to lay down judgement on someone whose life was being threatened by violent pieces of filth.
Once attacked violently every human has the right to defend themselves until they know they have neutralized that threat.
I don't give a flip if some words written on a piece of paper by some idiot politicians says otherwise.
18thandBoston
You might want to watch those movies again because you apparently are too ignorant to know what they are about.
I just stated that being a vigilante is wrong.
This is about DEFENDING YOURSELF.
You bootlickers make all childish attacks you want on people who respect others right to self defense.
But someday if you are in a position where your life is being threatened by a violent attacker, you will be thankful if some of us you like to mock as rednecks are there to maybe save your life while you are cowering in the corner offering the attacker jelly beans.
Another fallacy you bootlickers present is that the robber "no longer presented a threat."
You don't know that. The pharmacist didn't know that.
NOT KNOWING if someone who just participated in trying to kill you might be able to continute that attack is perfect reason to make sure you NEUTRALIZE THE THREAT AGAINST YOUR LIFE.
Maybe if someone comes in robbing you and trying to kill you and someone manages to get off a round and knock the guy down you will make him some cookies and get him a nice blankie.
But I bet you wouldn't.
Jolie2, DEFENDING yourself is not dishing out punishment. DEFENDING yourself is not being a vigilante.
If that piece of filth robber had left the store and 2 days later the pharmacist hunted him down and executed him, then yes, he should be tried.
Resorting to attacking people with things like "Yee haw" just shows your ignorance.
Some of you people crack me up with your idea that getting shot is like the movies where you fall over dead as a hammer the very second you are struck by a bullet, regardless of caliber, placement of the shot, etc.
Once those pieces of filth came in and initiated violence against him, he had the right to use deadly force to defend himself. Just because one of the violent attackers was down from a shot doesn't mean he wasn't still a threat.
If that useless criminal so much as flinched or appeared to be breathing, the pharmacist should have considered him still a threat and continued to defend himself by doing what was needed to MAKE SURE the threat was neutralized.
Once he was violently attacked by these walking piles of garbage he had no responsiblity to worry whether he had wounded or killed either of them. His only responsiblity was to defend himself in a manner that GUARANTEED his safety.
Hopefully there will never be a jury 100% comprised of ignorant government bootlickers who don't realize that all humans have a natural right to use DEADLY force to COMPLETELY NEUTRALIZE any violent attack on their person by violent evil doers.
If this goes to an actual trial we need people outside the courthouse on days they are picking the jury handing out information on JURY NULLIFICATION to everyone that goes by in hopes of it getting in the hands of the jurors.
The jury exists to protect citizens from the government.
If the government in this case is attempting to take this man's liberty for defending himself against violent criminals, then the jury needs to nullify the charge with a not guilty vote.
How about some numbers on regular flu death?
If the loving imperial government dislikes alcohol so much they should stop collecting taxes on it's sale as well.
The minute this ordinance is passed, every human being in Norman should go walk around buttneked with a cold beer in their hand.
