Anonymous wrote:
+1.

He was acting as a self-appointed vigilante, no more no less.

DC would probably benefit from having a thousand of those, especially in SE.

Many of the killings in DC are exactly that -- attempts to seek revenge or justice. Both those killings and the Comet episode demonstrate why vigilantism is illegal and not something to be rewarded by leniency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

He is not being charged with hurting anyone. I don't understand why he should not be held responsible for the crimes he committed. Are you suggesting that firing a gun in a restaurant is okay if you have good intentions? Also, I didn't vote for Clinton.

If you are, say, a retired Marine in FL carrying concealed, who happens to be eating there when a robbery takes place? Yes. The man I mention was not charged

Stopping a robbery, if that is what your are describing, is a far cry from randomly walking into a restaurant and firing off rounds.

He thought he was rescuing children being held captive for the sex trade. That's not random.

+1.

He was acting as a self-appointed vigilante, no more no less.

DC would probably benefit from having a thousand of those, especially in SE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

He is not being charged with hurting anyone. I don't understand why he should not be held responsible for the crimes he committed. Are you suggesting that firing a gun in a restaurant is okay if you have good intentions? Also, I didn't vote for Clinton.

If you are, say, a retired Marine in FL carrying concealed, who happens to be eating there when a robbery takes place? Yes. The man I mention was not charged

Stopping a robbery, if that is what your are describing, is a far cry from randomly walking into a restaurant and firing off rounds.

He thought he was rescuing children being held captive for the sex trade. That's not random.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

He carried an unregistered firearm into DC, pointed it at the employees of a restaurant full of people, including children (that is assault with a deadly weapon in DC), and then he discharged the weapon during the crime. That's several felonies even before we get to stuff like reckless endangerment. This guy is a threat to public safety.

90% of criminal cases are settled via plea. There is no "attempt to cover things up". Everyone in DC knows where John Podesta lives. If there were " strange" things going on, we'd know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

He is not being charged with hurting anyone. I don't understand why he should not be held responsible for the crimes he committed. Are you suggesting that firing a gun in a restaurant is okay if you have good intentions? Also, I didn't vote for Clinton.

If you are, say, a retired Marine in FL carrying concealed, who happens to be eating there when a robbery takes place? Yes. The man I mention was not charged

Stopping a robbery, if that is what your are describing, is a far cry from randomly walking into a restaurant and firing off rounds.

Walking into a restaurant, where nothing illegal is taking place, and firing off rounds. Likening what happened at Comet somehow to stopping a crime in progress suggests that there is some credence to the idea that something nefarious was going on at Comet. There was nothing of the kind.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

He is not being charged with hurting anyone. I don't understand why he should not be held responsible for the crimes he committed. Are you suggesting that firing a gun in a restaurant is okay if you have good intentions? Also, I didn't vote for Clinton.

If you are, say, a retired Marine in FL carrying concealed, who happens to be eating there when a robbery takes place? Yes. The man I mention was not charged

Stopping a robbery, if that is what your are describing, is a far cry from randomly walking into a restaurant and firing off rounds.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

He is not being charged with hurting anyone. I don't understand why he should not be held responsible for the crimes he committed. Are you suggesting that firing a gun in a restaurant is okay if you have good intentions? Also, I didn't vote for Clinton.

If you are, say, a retired Marine in FL carrying concealed, who happens to be eating there when a robbery takes place? Yes. The man I mention was not charged

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

He is not being charged with hurting anyone. I don't understand why he should not be held responsible for the crimes he committed. Are you suggesting that firing a gun in a restaurant is okay if you have good intentions? Also, I didn't vote for Clinton.

He should certainly be charged for the crimes he committed. No more no less. Same standard for all.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

He is not being charged with hurting anyone. I don't understand why he should not be held responsible for the crimes he committed. Are you suggesting that firing a gun in a restaurant is okay if you have good intentions? Also, I didn't vote for Clinton.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

True.

Now, even a partisan Hillary-voter can probably notice a difference between BLM rioters destroying public spaces and killing cops, and a derangled gunman trying to save some kids and peacefully surrendering with NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, harmed?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

Exactly Jeff. Pretty sure ISIS considers itself heroic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

Heroic intent is something that almost all terrorists would claim.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

If being an idiot was an excuse the jails would be empty.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

I am not excusing his action. I am saying that his intent was not horrible. He did not go into to rob. And he surrendered once he realized the truth.

+1.

As a matter of fact, his intent was heroic.

As you say, once he realized his mistake, he simply surrendered.

If only all DC criminals behaved that way.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel sorry for the comet pingpong gunman. He believed what he read, and wanted to rescue the kids. That was his intent.

For him, the problem was he was unable to discern the truth from fiction.

I felt sorry for him, but what he did is deplorable: effectively attacking a restaurant.

Plea deal makes sense.

Remember that he fired shots through an office door with at least one bullet hitting a computer in the office. He could have hit someone hiding in the office. The offenses should not be excused because he is an idiot.

He also pointed a gun at a person. He could have killed someone. As someone that survived a school shooting, and watched three people get their heads blow off, and had a gun pointed at me, his inability to understand a fake news story doesn't negate the seriousness of his crime. I still have nightmares 20+ years later. What he did was inexcusable. He needs to serve time, serious time. No sympathy. None.