Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're back to thinking his DELUSIONAL intent justifies this crime. Again I ask, why didn't he just call the police?

I don't see the PP as justifying the crime. I'm saying the crime was not random. He didn't call the police because he honestly thought they knew and weren't doing anything. Think of him as a liberal and the children he thought were in the basement as illegal immigrants. That should help

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, I'm very surprised they would plea deal this. It seems possible to me that there's more going on with the owner that would be potential discovery/public information if it went to trial.

Bullshit. And shame on you.

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.

So let's post your place of business or home address all over the web. Let's also say that underage prostitution and forced labor was happening at your house and work address. Maybe some deranged person will do the public a favor and come shoot up your places. Hopefully you will be at one of them
When the shooting occurs.

Signed someone who was sheltering in place when a deranged shooter decided he was defending something. I'm sick of all you stupid bitches spouting off nonsense. Maybe you need to experience some of the horrors you blithely defend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-prosecutors-offer-unspecified-plea-deal-in-comet-ping-pong-pizza-case/2017/01/24/db300f2a-e245-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html

The terms haven't been released yet, but apparently Edgar Maddison Welch has been offered a plea deal. I really don't understand this unless the terms of the deal are very harsh. I can't imagine a more open and shut case than this one. It would be an easy conviction.

Very misleading to describe him as "shooter" in the title.

Why?

Because he didn't shoot at anyone, not even close.

He used his gun to break a lock and open a door.

He was deranged, but not like one of those actual shooters who go to a school and kill 30 kids. It is obvious that neither his actions nor his intentions have anything to do with that.

Didn't he shoot the weapon? So he's a shooter.

If he went into a school and killed 30 kids (or even 1), he'd be called a murderer since that kind of trumps shooter in importance.

When I was 12, I shot a weapon. In a public space (at a pole in a farm, and people were around, behind me). Does that make me a shooter?

There is a reason the media is not calling him that. He isn't, according to the most common uses of the term.

But feel free to use misleading terms...not sure what you win with it, but it's your right to free speech.

When I'm on the range, you have to scream out shooter down range if you are going beyond the firing point.

Fuck this piece of shit. I hope he gets at least 2 years. I would be satisfied if he got 2 yrs.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

Nice distraction but not true. You couldn't list one dozen destroyed downtowns, let alone dozens.

I'm not an enciclopedia, and I'm not to waste time googling around.

Top of mind, I can think of:

Ferguson
Baltimore
Atlanta
Chicago
Detroit

More than enough to prove a trend and a national disgrace.

I often struggle with math, but even I know that 5 doesn't equal "dozens". In additional to your obvious math challenges, I question your understanding of the word "destroy". Where the downtowns of any of the cities you listed really "destroyed" or were they merely damaged?

Thank you for acknowledging your math struggles.

Let me make it easy for you.

Whatever you think of the Comet Ping Pong guy, BLMers did much worse.

#fact

Clear?

It is clear that your math, English, and logic all suck. Now that you have conceded that your off-topic divergence was factually wrong, can you get back to the subject of the thread?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

Nice distraction but not true. You couldn't list one dozen destroyed downtowns, let alone dozens.

I'm not an enciclopedia, and I'm not to waste time googling around.

Top of mind, I can think of:

Ferguson
Baltimore
Atlanta
Chicago
Detroit

More than enough to prove a trend and a national disgrace.

I often struggle with math, but even I know that 5 doesn't equal "dozens". In additional to your obvious math challenges, I question your understanding of the word "destroy". Where the downtowns of any of the cities you listed really "destroyed" or were they merely damaged?

Thank you for acknowledging your math struggles.

Let me make it easy for you.

Whatever you think of the Comet Ping Pong guy, BLMers did much worse.

#fact

Clear?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

Nice distraction but not true. You couldn't list one dozen destroyed downtowns, let alone dozens.

I'm not an enciclopedia, and I'm not to waste time googling around.

Top of mind, I can think of:

Ferguson
Baltimore
Atlanta
Chicago
Detroit

More than enough to prove a trend and a national disgrace.

You are not even a dictionary.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

Except that we prosecuted everyone that we could make a case against. Which is the opposite of impunity.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

Nice distraction but not true. You couldn't list one dozen destroyed downtowns, let alone dozens.

I'm not an enciclopedia, and I'm not to waste time googling around.

Top of mind, I can think of:

Ferguson
Baltimore
Atlanta
Chicago
Detroit

More than enough to prove a trend and a national disgrace.

I often struggle with math, but even I know that 5 doesn't equal "dozens". In additional to your obvious math challenges, I question your understanding of the word "destroy". Where the downtowns of any of the cities you listed really "destroyed" or were they merely damaged?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

Nice distraction but not true. You couldn't list one dozen destroyed downtowns, let alone dozens.

I'm not an enciclopedia, and I'm not to waste time googling around.

Top of mind, I can think of:

Ferguson
Baltimore
Atlanta
Chicago
Detroit

More than enough to prove a trend and a national disgrace.

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.

John Hinckley didn't act randomly. Neither did Charles Mandin or the Orlando
shooter. I agree, no biggie.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

Nice distraction but not true. You couldn't list one dozen destroyed downtowns, let alone dozens.

jsteele wrote:

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.

Except, we allowed BLM rioters to destroy dozens of downtowns with complete impunity.

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.

You're back to thinking his DELUSIONAL intent justifies this crime. Again I ask, why didn't he just call the police?