View Single Post
  #99  
Old 04-03-2009, 10:56 AM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota369 View Post
Berating someone or calling him 'ignorant' for posting his opinion on someone who used excessive force and broke the law is pretty weak. Whether or not you agree or disagree with what the shooter did is one thing, but Jester's post is a reflection of the laws involved....



He is charged with this, and considered innocent....it is your opinion that he is guilty. In my opinion jesters opinion is ignorant and therefore my post is as valid a post as yours......
That's an interesting spin on what you originally said. So let's look at it:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Shooting at someone if your life is in danger is one thing..

Shooting at someone who stole your quad is attempted murder.

Ok then...let the hate begin.. (end of Jester's post)

Living up to your name again jester, as well as showing your ignorance......ever been robbed?? "

You were not discussing any assumption of guilt or innocence. You stated Jester was living up to his nickname, this making your attack personal. You then said he was showing ignorance. YOu then said "ever been robbed?". One must assume that if one had been robbed, it would be obvious that shooting the robber was a completely appropriate action. "ever been robbed?" has nothing to do with presumption of guilt or the legal process.

He stated his opinion about the morality of shooting someone, you stated yours, but you threw in a little venom as well. Now you've changed your tack and tried to argue you were just pointing out the ignorance of a position (assumption of guilt) that wasn't even in question.
Reply With Quote