As if to minimize the Marine's courage? Makes me wonder.
As for the "some of his previous posts" comment, I would tend to agree. Sorry.
I would draw the line at saying I'm sorry for voicing my opinion, Patrick has not apoligized for voicing his opinion and I see no reason for him to. I thought part of the point here was to voice our opinions in a semi-civil manner. LOL
At no point is everyone gonna agree on everything, just don't work that way but that does not mean that if your in the minority you should not at least get to voice that opinion, and in doing so one should not apoligize for having done it!
I think what is meant by the "some of his previous posts" comment, Patrick, is that they assume (wrongly) you'll take some ludicrously far-left position on everything, and they will interpret your posts as such.
Also, I see what you're saying, that it's crazy when a teenage girl who wouldn't fit the typical profile of a gang member and mugger makes the bad, bad choice she made.
EDIT: Oh yeah, Patrick, your 139th rating is a + from me, just 'cause I give them out to people who I think don't deserve negs.
[This message has been edited by GonsaiPK (edited 06-02-2006).]
Fine, but where do you draw the line? Why report the guy was a Marine? Why report he was a guy? Why report he was a cook? Why report a knife was used? Why report it happened in Atlanta?
Should every male ex-Marine living in Atlanta working as a cook who’s ever used a knife be offended or pleased or what?
Interestingly enough, two facts that were never mentioned (in any news reports I’ve read) were that both the Marine and the girl were black. What will some of you read into that? Am I now being racist?
When I said the facts were irrelavent I meant that to me it did not matter about the size of the perps, the race of the perps, the physical condition of the perps, the ages, etc........
It don't matter to me if the person defending themselves was a male or female, an exotic dancer or an ex navy seal.
The facts should be reported, and reported accurately but the fact that she was a young girl is irrelevant to me. To me she was just another thug.
As far as the dismay some may feel that a young woman would be involved in such an incident, well it does not suprise me in the least.
As I’ve already stated earlier on this page, I felt it was newsworthy that a pregnant 17 year old girl was participating in armed robbery. Somehow this is being turned around by many people to appear that I felt she should’ve received “special consideration”. I don’t know how many more ways I can state that this was never my intention.
quote
Fastback, thanks for stating that.
I just checked over the ratings I’ve given people on this forum, and there’s a grand total of 20 people I’ve given negatives to over the years. Most of those people are not even members here anymore. Believe it or not, not one person involved in this thread has ever received a negative from me. Honest. However, as you might imagine, that could change.
What really galls me are all the ignorant spineless cowards who look over a couple of posts in a thread and then give people negative ratings. They haven’t got the guts or the brains to engage in a rational discussion, but they nonetheless rate people at the slightest whim.
I’d like to see who has real balls here. Who has given me a negative rating due to what has been stated in this thread?
On the first point, I missed what you had posted earlier on the page. I can't speak for everyone, but my misinterpretation came from the wording of your first post. When you used the phrase "just to keep some perspective," it appeared to me that you found it more important that a pregnant teen girl died than that she was part of a steet gang trying to rob an innocent man at gun point. I realize now, of course, that you just wanted to bring the info about the girl up because it definately is out of the ordinary and rather disheartening.
On the second point, I agree completely. I note, with little surprise, that only one person has posted how they rated you , and it was a +
I haven't looked at this thread since it was first posted. I honestly couldn't figure out how the thing got to 4 pages so I looked at it again. I haven't changed my rating for you one way or the other because of this thread.
You say that you made the comment because "I felt it was newsworthy that a pregnant 17 year old girl was participating in armed robbery. " Then you turn around and say " Sorry if it wrecks the illusion of some 6'5" 350lb muscle-bound guy being handed his ass.". I'm sorry man, but those two statements together give me the right to form an opinion of what you meant. Your previous posts in other threads also add to the formation of that opinion. It's the way the human mind works. We take current experiences and add them to what we know of history and make an (hopefully) informed opinion. Sometimes those opinions are on the mark, sometimes they are way off the mark.
Now it's certainly appropriate for you to come back if you think your statements are being misinterpreted and explain them (or argue them) so people understand what it is you really meant. After all, you're the only one that really knows.
All of that I have no quarrel with you on. I don't even care if you DID mean that the victim was a wimp because he got in a knife fight with a pregnant teenage girl, if that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
Then Uaana said "FOA.
quote
Ya, I think most of us can see maybe that's what Patrick was saying.
Unfortunately some of his previous posts have probably colored peoples opinions of him and his posts.
Just my 2c
and you took great offense to it. Now that I really don't understand. You are a very left wing liberal. You rarely miss an opportunity to tell us poor dumb Americans how we're doing it wrong. That, my friend, is a fact based on your posting history. That fact definitely adds a certain slant to your original post, whether you want it to or not.
Patrick, you and I have debated often. Be honest, when I post something, do you or do you not have a pre-conceived notion of my political stand? If I were to type a statement like "Even arguing abortion rights is stupid", and knowing my past posting history, wouldn't that change what you presumed my meaning of that statement to be?
You wrote a very amibiguous line with your first post. People interpreted that based on both what you wrote in it, and what you've written in the past. That's nothing that you can be particularly mad or unhappy about, it's the way we make our decisions and how we understand things. To be frank, I personally think a lot of what you've written since has been a load of BS. If what you really meant was that it was just a tragedy that one of the attackers was a teenage pregnant (as reported at that time) girl, then you would have said so, right away, when it was obvious people were taking your post wrong instead of :
"Why so defensive? I simply stated a fact from the above link.
Sorry if it wrecks the illusion of some 6'5" 350lb muscle-bound guy being handed his ass."
Once the lynch mob began to form, then you made "further clarification" as the news media would say. But whatever, that's your choice, you've attempted to explain what you meant and I take you at your word. I just don't understand your surprise at being hammered from the beginning. Your outrage and anger at being ganged up on, sure, but not your surprise.
John Stricker
Yep, you still have the same rating from me you had before, and it's not a negative.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
My response was to counteract the sensationist heading of the original news story, “Midtown Rambo; Victim Fight Backs, Kills Robber” and two posts by DtheC at the beginning of this thread. Both the news heading and the posts by DtheC seemed to me to be glorifying the killing of the robber. By making it clear that the robber was not some huge guy, not some hardened criminal, I was only attempting to take some of the “glory” out of the killing. The "handed his ass" part was actually paraphrased from one of DtheC's posts. If you saw the video I referred to in a previous post of the Marine, you’d know that even he would probably be horrified to be compared to “Rambo” in this situation. .
Originally posted by Patrick: By making it clear that the robber was not some huge guy, not some hardened criminal, I was only attempting to take some of the “glory” out of the killing.
How do you define "hardened criminal?" Now you're making an assumption based on what you consider a "hardened criminal" that this teenage girl wasn't THAT bad. Surly not as bad as a "hardened criminal" right? How do you know what type of criminal she was? Provide evidence of this.
Who suggested there was any "glory" in the killing? Interesting that you called it a "killing" as if to make it sound like the Marine set out to kill someone on purpose.
No one suggested the robber was a guy or girl, huge or small, hardened or softened . I saw it as a criminal thug who got killed trying to rob someone. No glory, just one less criminal on the street.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-02-2006).]
Specifically... "Nick, read over your last five posts as if for the first time. Is this the same kind-hearted softie who starts a new thread in O/T and cries everytime his dog farts?"
Pretty obnoxious. And probably where you earned the neg you got from me. It certainly wasn't this thread.
Just an observation... In many threads you seem to shoot from the hip with the objective of being abrasive, then if/when people get all chapped, you say that you were "misunderstood". (No. I'm not going to supply a link. Go search for yourself. I would encourage others to do the same if they feel so motivated. Or not.) Many of your posts seem to be purpously ambiguous, so that you can "backtrack" if people get torqued, but still allowing you to be as rude as you want until someone calls you on it. I'm not buying it.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 06-02-2006).]
Patrick, You are a very left wing liberal. You rarely miss an opportunity to tell us poor dumb Americans how we're doing it wrong. That, my friend, is a fact based on your posting history. That fact definitely adds a certain slant to your original post, whether you want it to or not.
Specifically... "Nick, read over your last five posts as if for the first time. Is this the same kind-hearted softie who starts a new thread in O/T and cries everytime his dog farts?"
Pretty obnoxious. And probably where you earned the neg you got from me. It certainly wasn't this thread.
Just an observation... In many threads you seem to shoot from the hip with the objective of being abrasive, then if/when people get all chapped, you say that you were "misunderstood". (No. I'm not going to supply a link. Go search for yourself. I would encourage others to do the same if they feel so motivated. Or not.) Many of your posts seem to be purpously ambiguous, so that you can "backtrack" if people get torqued, but still allowing you to be as rude as you want until someone calls you on it. I'm not buying it.
From what I understand, the girl wasn't pregnant, she was a part of a terrorist robbing crew, they even drove a brand new 2007 Cadillac, meaning they robbed quite a few people.
I'm pretty sure 17 year olds get pregnant in Canada as well. Especially Vancouver, because its one if not the most crime ridden city in Canada.
Bahahhahahhahahhhahahhahahaha.. I'll assume that was a joke, if so, I'll give you props for the 'terrorist robbing crew'.. But if it wasn't a joke, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
Bahahhahahhahahhhahahhahahaha.. I'll assume that was a joke, if so, I'll give you props for the 'terrorist robbing crew'.. But if it wasn't a joke, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
LOL Billy madison was a great movie. We are all now stupider for having read any of patrics replies. LOL
------------------ HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?
LOL Billy madison was a great movie. We are all now stupider for having read any of patrics replies. LOL
Err, my response wasn't directed towards Patrick. I see what he's saying to a degree, personally. And I think others just want to fight or inject cheap shots while making it appear that they are just sitting on the fence.
STIFFLER let it go. Too many bleeding hearts on here. Plus if your beliefs differ from everyone else youre labeled a racist and a hate monger.
I love how people make up numbers, or claim to "know" so many "facts"
"The Final Solution" was created not only to be efficient but to minimize the trauma for German officers. Separating the men from the women, and then the children from the women, then to machine gun them all down in mass graves including the babies. That led to most German officers and troops to commit suicide. Yeah, they weren't human at all.
Demonizing Germans who were just doing their job is pretty pathetic. Unlike all those "American" soldiers who fled to Canada to avoid Nam and the Iraq war. What jokes they are.
sondercommando. Anyone familiar with this? I like how people forget about those "victims".
The point is Stiffler if you go against what "civilized society" says is right and wrong. You will be a racist, etc.
Yeah, put the gun in her hands, why don't you. Interesting how you tried to alter the news story a bit to more justify your position. I'm sure my point isn't lost on anyone who cares to see it.
How is that misplaced values? Seems to me some of you guys care less about the point than who is making the point.. Remember a few years ago when I had to 'subdue' a girl who was throwing haymakers at me? Funny how I recall I was the bad guy in that scenario.. Is it cause I wasn't in the armed forces? I didn't have 'training that kicked in' so it was my fault, I consciously did it? It was only broken noses, and not shotgun slugs? I thought a 'thug is a thug'? Maybe he was in the right, maybe he wasn't..
If I'm walking down the street and get jumped, and happen to pull a knife out of my back pocket, I guarantee I'll be a murderer, not a hero, at least in some of your eyes. Replace me with someone else, and the outcome of the story changes and what I become changes, doesn't it?
Argh, I just don't have the time so far today to deal with all these posts... but I will eventually.
Johnny, considering that you and I have certainly had our share of disagreements over the years, I definitely appreciate that you’re able to look at this thread objectively and then express your opinion. Thanks.
Sorry for not dealing with these posts in chronological order.
quote
Originally posted by larryemory:
You have no point-just misplaced values. So sad.
Isn’t it interesting that prior to this post, Larry had contributed nothing, not one bit, to the discussion in this thread? Why would he now? Oh, I think I know...
For anyone interested, have look at the exchanges there between Larry and myself. Larry likes throwing around info that he pulls out of his... imagination. Here’s a sample of one of Larry’s posts in that thread:
quote
Originally posted by larryemory:
When it come to atrocities tha Nazis are always held up as an example. True they are but the numbers pale when compared to the numbers starved, murdered, executed by The Communist. Is it because the press is left leaning and tend to cover for the socialists? They also have gotten by with labeling the Nazis as a right wing government. The Nazis were also a socialist monstrosity. Again the scope of the atrocities is unknown. Between Stalen and Kruschev somewhere between 100 million and 200 million perished. The Communist were MUCH worse than the Nazis.
Larry doesn’t like his comments questioned, despite the number of generalizations, assumptions, and just plain errors. Typical political nonsense, but that’s grist for another day.
Thanks for your contribution to this thread, Larry.
Seems to me some of you guys care less about the point than who is making the point.. Remember a few years ago when I had to 'subdue' a girl who was throwing haymakers at me? Funny how I recall I was the bad guy in that scenario.. Is it cause I wasn't in the armed forces?
If I'm walking down the street and get jumped, and happen to pull a knife out of my back pocket, I guarantee I'll be a murderer, not a hero, at least in some of your eyes.
Your supposed scenario isn't equivalent.
A few years ago, if the girl was throwing haymakers at you, and you RAN DOWN THE STREET trying to get away from her, and then she caught up with you and kept punching you, and THEN you subdued her, THAT would be analagous. And then you would have received a different response.
PLUS, communication has a cumulative effect. No one on the forum here PERSONALLY knew the Marine. Several on the forum had read your communications before the girl attack, and so through those had formulated ideas of you that would have affected their perception of your judgement of the situation. It had nothing to do with that you weren't in the armed forces. It was a reaction of how you had portrayed yourself on the forum previous to the incident, and their reaction to that.
BUT, if you were walking down the street, got chased by 5 people intending to rob you, you ran, they caught you, pulled a shotgun on you, and two of them jumped on you, and you killed one with a pocket knife and seriously wounded another, the answer is unequivocally NO. You are DEFINITELY wrong. You would NOT be considered a murderer on this forum. There might be POSSIBLY one isolated crackpot on the forum that callled you a murderer and not a hero, but that person would have been ganged up on, rated negative, and out of the forum within a day for calling you that.
Regarding Patrick, I feel very badly for what is happening to him. On initially reading his responses, I disagreed with what he said and the way it came across. Still do. However, he has clarified his intent umpteen times now. No malicious intent. Trying to express some perspective. Agree, disagree, whatever. Regardless, how much is enough? Is it necessary to continue to dogpile on Patrick? Is it necessary to over-use the negative rating system? You may not have liked what he said, but it wasn't in an insulting or intentionally inflammatory enough way, in my opinion, to send the negatives flying.
Goodness. Someone recently said something to the effect of all police should be killed.
Regarding Patrick, I feel very badly for what is happening to him. On initially reading his responses, I disagreed with what he said and the way it came across. Still do. However, he has clarified his intent umpteen times now. No malicious intent. Trying to express some perspective. Agree, disagree, whatever. Regardless, how much is enough? Is it necessary to continue to dogpile on Patrick? Is it necessary to over-use the negative rating system? You may not have liked what he said, but it wasn't in an insulting or intentionally inflammatory enough way, in my opinion, to send the negatives flying.
Goodness. Someone recently said something to the effect of all police should be killed.
Doc, I appreciate your sentiments.
You’re someone else on this forum that I’ve often disagreed with, but we both seem to be able to debate with each other in a civil manner. It’s always a pleasure discussing issues with you. I actually don’t mind the comments (not all the neg ratings) coming my way from the various people in this thread, but I’ve got limited time today to try and keep up with them and post replies.
BUT, if you were walking down the street, got chased by 5 people intending to rob you, you ran, they caught you, pulled a shotgun on you, and two of them jumped on you, and you killed one with a pocket knife and seriously wounded another, the answer is unequivocally NO. You are DEFINITELY wrong. You would NOT be considered a murderer on this forum. There might be POSSIBLY one isolated crackpot on the forum that callled you a murderer and not a hero, but that person would have been ganged up on, rated negative, and out of the forum within a day for calling you that.
And no one called the guy with the knife defending himself a murdered either. Patrick just made a social comment about a supposedly pregnent girl getting killed being sad, didn't defend her actions, didn't call the ex marine a murdered. Just pointed out the glee some apparently took in an ex marine taking down some bad guys like it's a rambo flick.
I think the issue is that we have lost the definition of a hero... todays paper had some kids that found a dead girls remains getting awarded as heros, to many people consider overpaid sports stars heros, someone surviving an attack is a hero... NO, someone that gets involved in saving others is a hero. The guy defended his life, that makes him a survivor, not attempting to demean his actions in any way, but a hero would be if he'd jumped in to save someone elses life at the risk of his own. I applaud that he attempted avoidance of the situation first, didn't just go rambo and end up getting himself and possibly innocent bystanders killed. Bad people pushed it and one paid with her life, end of story except for the details that make it human and make it a social tragedy, that young girls are out robbing people and involved with gangs. It's not a new story, but that brings it home, the victim (being the exmarine) didn't leave his house intending to get involved in an attempted robbery or wanting to kill anyone, it doesn't need any Hooah! or a call for more blood. It calls for some delving into the reasons kids are joining gangs, girls and boys alike. My kid's bus stop got moved because teenage gang members were siccing pit bulls on the kids waiting for the bus and shooting them with pellet guns. Anyone a hero? No, it's just sad that one group of kids doing what they are supposed to be doing gets attacked by another group who where brought up wrong for whatever reason. Can that sort of situation be rectified before one of those gang members kills someone or gets killed themselves?
Originally posted by Patrick: I suspect you had already reached your limit.
Yes . your stupididy has overflown my capacity to think rationally and civilized. Therefore i will gracefully bow out and let you spew your liberal bleeding heart garbage until this thread dies. Long live the Marine corp and Semper Fi !
------------------ HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?
Shyster, I’m beginning to wonder about your motivations here. In This thread you came to the defense of a forum member who is a known troll, a sympathizer of war criminals. Even when I pointed out to you what a dumbass he was/is, you continued to pursue your line of reasoning. So what’s your game here, are you trying to live up to your user name?
Odd (or perhaps not) that you demand rational argument when it is manifested as criticism of yourself or of your own position, but ignore it in favor of ad hominem attacks when you direct criticism at others. (And not myself only, as a rational read of your comments above shows).
I disagree with your assessment of the thread you linked. There, my intention was to come to the defense of gentility in argument, as opposed to merely yelling "dumbass" at anyone who disagrees with one's point of view (which you not only did there, but continue to do here). In fact, the precis of your criticism of me is that I didn't meekly agree with you that the target of your wrath in the other thread was a "dumbass."
Wow. So there it is in black and white. I don't necessarily and reflexively agree with your judgments, and I do not think you should be abusive in announcing those assessments. How's that for a "motivation?" Why do you attack that position? Weren't such perceived attacks the same basis for your complaint (in this thread) that you were receiving negatives for expressing your opinion? Or is that one of those rules that applies to you, but not to others?
Now now, that wasn't EXACTLY what he said.. He never made a proactive statement..
Correct. I apologize. I don't want to be unfair (even though I said SOMETHING to the effect of, but that still probably isn't fair enough.) It actually was:
"The only good cop.....is a dead cop.
no woder i smile every time I open a newspaper and read that one of them is dead. One is not enough." johnnyk and I disagree on some things. Like in this thread, for example. He voiced an opinion on what would happen to him in a similar situation as the topic of the thread. I didn't think that is what would happen, and posted a differing opinion. johnnyk didn't call me names and give me a negative for it, or start fighting.
Patrick and I disagree on some things, too. OK, that happens. Don't have to get personal and nasty about it. So we don't.
I consider myself friends with people on both sides of this issue, and have just felt bad about the way this has gone. I really like being on the forum and knowing people from around the country and world, and hearing their viewpoints. I'm sorry this misunderstanding escalated to this level. I guess that's all I'm trying to say.
Yes . your stupididy has overflown my capacity to think rationally and civilized. Therefore i will gracefully bow out and let you spew your liberal bleeding heart garbage until this thread dies.
I think you need a few more lessons on how to be graceful, among other things. Bye...
At no point is everyone gonna agree on everything, just don't work that way but that does not mean that if your in the minority you should not at least get to voice that opinion...
That's potentially one of the flaws in the rating system in this forum. Rock the boat enough, even in a completely civil manner, and conceivably you could lose the opportunity to post and voice an opinion here.
quote
Originally posted by DRA:
The facts should be reported, and reported accurately...
I think what is meant by the "some of his previous posts" comment, Patrick, is that they assume (wrongly) you'll take some ludicrously far-left position on everything, and they will interpret your posts as such.
Gonsai, I think you are 100% on the mark. The dumbest thing about that though is that this label, which some forum members are so eager to pin to me, is incorrect. I belong to no political party, I do not vote exclusively for any political party, and to tell the truth, I can’t stand politicians of any stripe. Yes, I’ve been critical of many right-wing comments here over the years, but I’m just as keen to chastise a left-winger if I think they’ve stepped over the line. I did this with connecticutFIERO recently in This thread, and I chastise Johnny all the time. I like to think that I’m “center-of-the-road” politically. In other words, I try to see both sides of an issue. However, it’s obvious I’ve been tarred with the “Liberal” brush here. So be it...
quote
Originally posted by GonsaiPK:
Oh yeah, Patrick, your 139th rating is a + from me, just 'cause I give them out to people who I think don't deserve negs.
I realize now, of course, that you just wanted to bring the info about the girl up because it definately is out of the ordinary and rather disheartening.
Careful, you’ll be accused now of spewing out “liberal bleeding heart garbage”.
quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:
On the second point, I agree completely. I note, with little surprise, that only one person has posted how they rated you , and it was a +
Yes, so far not one person has admitted to giving me a negative based on what I’ve stated in this thread. Yet the negatives are still piling up. Must be an awful lot of cowards hovering in the background.
Interesting that you called it a "killing" as if to make it sound like the Marine set out to kill someone on purpose.
That was such a silly, stupid thing for you to infer that I won't even waste my time on your other questions.
Okay, I'll deal with the posts by John and Raydar in the morning. They both brought up some interesting points which I want to cover at length (when I'm a little fresher, as it's 1:30 am local time).
And no one called the guy with the knife defending himself a murdered either. Patrick just made a social comment about a supposedly pregnent girl getting killed being sad, didn't defend her actions, didn't call the ex marine a murdered. Just pointed out the glee some apparently took in an ex marine taking down some bad guys like it's a rambo flick.
I wanted to dispel any "glee" before it really got rolling, but that's a pretty good summary. Thanks Scott.
Anyone who is genuinely shocked at the idea of a teenage girl being a gang member has either lived a sheltered life or is willfully ignorant.
Gotta admit, though, Pat, you've done a nice job of steering the thread away from your inane initial remark and towards how you've been so unfairly ganged up on. Maybe you need to find a Marine to save you..
That was such a silly, stupid thing for you to infer that I won't even waste my time on your other questions.
Okay, I'll deal with the posts by John and Raydar in the morning. They both brought up some interesting points which I want to cover at length (when I'm a little fresher, as it's 1:30 am local time).
It makes as much sense as your assumptions of my reasons for posting. You're a silly little troll who has taken this thread away from the subject and has tried to make it your own little pity festival so you can complain about how everyone's ganging up on you.
Enjoy your martyrdom. I've voiced my opinion of the facts of this case. I'm done.
Yes, so far not one person has admitted to giving me a negative based on what I’ve stated in this thread. Yet the negatives are still piling up.
I always find it pretty darn amazing that people who have well over 100 ratings can tell if a new rating is positive or negative because, simply put, you can't. And It gets very old having to read people are attacking the rating system because every time their total (ratings) increases, they assume it must because they received a negative.
FYI I just checked your ratings for the heck of it. You got quite a few positive ratings in this thread as well (granted, you got more negatives than positives but still a substantial portion is positive). But since the rating system is flawed in your opinion, these positive ratings must be equally "undeserved" as the negative ratings you got in this thread. Right? Or are only negative ratings undeserved and every positive well-earned?
Another thing that's getting really old is the "ganging up" excuse. If a few persons disagree, but most agree, you are right and the few that disagree are trolls. If most people disagree and only a few agree, then you are still right but people are ganging up on you and there are only a few sane people. Right? Rrrrrright.
I believe this might just be the definition of a discussion in O/T.
John Stricker
PS: I always wondered how they knew they were getting negatives as well, I can never tell one way or the other.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
Another thing that's getting really old is the "ganging up" excuse. If a few persons disagree, but most agree, you are right and the few that disagree are trolls. If most people disagree and only a few agree, then you are still right but people are ganging up on you and there are only a few sane people. Right? Rrrrrright.
. I saw it as a criminal thug who got killed trying to rob someone. No glory, just one less criminal on the street.
I like to think that I’m “center-of-the-road” politically. In other words, I try to see both sides of an issue. However, it’s obvious I’ve been tarred with the “Liberal” brush here. So be it...
