Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:30 pm
Best way to hurt a rich person is to make him poor. Bet you a dollar, Mortimer.
Page 7 of 102
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:33 pm
Ah. So the law's about hurting people. Got it.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:32 pm
You're.so sensitive, it's.becoming.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:51 pm
I am a sensitive artist
Nobody understands me because I am so deep
In my work I make allusions to books that nobody else has read
Music that nobody else has heard
And art that nobody else has seen
I can't help it
Because I am so much more intelligent
And well-rounded
Than everyone who surrounds me
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:02 pm
Yep the rest of us are just stupid sheep.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:10 pm
It's odd that Malcolm , who has no sympathy for anyone, has sympathy for thieves and liars.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:26 pm
Right?
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:26 pm
So if I want to get away with murder in America 2.0 all I have to do is stage a fake robbery and then "accidentally" kill them while trying to apprehend? Good to know.TheCatt wrote:This.Vince wrote:I have little sympathy for the thief. The Walmart employees were not intentionally trying to kill the guy. The guy was intentionally trying to be a thieving prick.
Killing him was (I'm assuming) an accident. Trying to catch a criminal was their primary focus. Had there been no criminal, no accidental death.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:44 pm
Yeah, weird. They must all be sitting on a lot of rage to be looking for excuses to "justifiably" kill someone.TPRJones wrote:So if I want to get away with murder in America 2.0 all I have to do is stage a fake robbery and then "accidentally" kill them while trying to apprehend? Good to know.TheCatt wrote:This.Vince wrote:I have little sympathy for the thief. The Walmart employees were not intentionally trying to kill the guy. The guy was intentionally trying to be a thieving prick.
Killing him was (I'm assuming) an accident. Trying to catch a criminal was their primary focus. Had there been no criminal, no accidental death.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:19 pm
Let me get this out of the way, if it's shown that the three men were far too violent in their take down and detention of the thief, then yes, they should be tried for manslaughter. However, based on the linked article, there's nothing in the details or autopsy about them beating him. It just says they detained him resulting in his death.
Did all three sit on him and crush him under their weight? Did he break his ribs when he fell and they were unaware of his injuries? Did one of them tackle him or block him into an object to stop him?
The one thing I do know for a fact is that the thief's actions led to his death. He walked into that store with the intent to commit a crime and then tried to flee when caught.
I also know that I feel like a store should have the right to defend itself from theft.
What I don't know is the mindset of the three employees. Are any of them sadistic? Did one of them get off on being overly violent and the other two fell prey? Did the heaviest of them simply sit on him with no intent to harm not realizing the guy had weak bones or injuries? Did the thief fight back causing them to think he was trying to get free instead of trying to breath?
Do we destroy three more lives and all of their families because one scumbag decided to go shoplifting that day? If you make a bad life choice, do you deserve to die?
Did all three sit on him and crush him under their weight? Did he break his ribs when he fell and they were unaware of his injuries? Did one of them tackle him or block him into an object to stop him?
The one thing I do know for a fact is that the thief's actions led to his death. He walked into that store with the intent to commit a crime and then tried to flee when caught.
I also know that I feel like a store should have the right to defend itself from theft.
What I don't know is the mindset of the three employees. Are any of them sadistic? Did one of them get off on being overly violent and the other two fell prey? Did the heaviest of them simply sit on him with no intent to harm not realizing the guy had weak bones or injuries? Did the thief fight back causing them to think he was trying to get free instead of trying to breath?
Do we destroy three more lives and all of their families because one scumbag decided to go shoplifting that day? If you make a bad life choice, do you deserve to die?
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:31 pm
If he broke all his ribs by himself, then he's got the most brittle skeleton this side of ceramic.Did he break his ribs when he fell and they were unaware of his injuries?
Did all three sit on him and crush him under their weight?
Semantics aside, I believe the force they used to hold him down caused him to stop breathing. And in that case...The Wal-Mart employees held him down until police could arrive, but Wisham stopped breathing.
No, they didn't. His actions would've led to some DVDs getting swiped. Others' actions led to his death. His subpar attempt at theft ended when someone noticed it. The thief's actions led to him getting caught, not killed. Killed came from somewhere else.The one thing I do know for a fact is that the thief's actions led to his death.
Irrelevant unless they can demonstrate the perp was intending to cause bodily harm of any sort to them OR that they'd be financially liable to replace the cost of the merch with cash from their own pocket (otherwise there is not sufficient risk or threat). Seeing as how he was running away (badly, might I add) and unarmed...What I don't know is the mindset of the three employees.
Then the store should hire real security personnel so they and their less trained employees don't find themselves in shit like this. Does Walmart hire random fucktards off the street to work their pharmacy? No, they require fucking proper knowledge and certs. Best Buy had a policy in place long ago that stated ONLY their security rent-a-cops could physically stop someone from leaving the store, even if they got caught on camera with stolen merch. It was specifically for things like this.I also know that I feel like a store should have the right to defend itself from theft.
Let him get back up and run away again. He'll get fifty feet before his pants fall back down. Shit, someone could've tracked him on foot while making a cell phone call to 911 and kept tabs on him. Fucking please.Did the thief fight back causing them to think he was trying to get free instead of trying to breath?
Considering they affected things so that he got a harsher penalty than the state would've administered, and given he wasn't threatening anyone's personal safety or violating their living space, yes, I think manslaughter charges and wrongful death suits are completely in play.Do we destroy three more lives and all of their families because one scumbag decided to go shoplifting that day?
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:37 pm
I get taking responsibility for the consequences of your choices. But why do you want to hold the thief responsible for the consequences of his actions but not hold the three people that may have killed him responsible for the consequences of theirs?The one thing I do know for a fact is that the thief's actions led to his death. He walked into that store with the intent to commit a crime and then tried to flee when caught.
As you say we don't know anything. But if they did tackle him in a manner that was unreasonably rough or sit on him in a manner that directly led to his suffocation then they should be tried for involuntary manslaughter. If they didn't then they should not. The fact that he was stealing should have no direct bearing on that matter. It would only be relevant if they were on trial for unlawful arrest (restraint, whatever) and they needed to prove why they had removed his freedom of motion. That is not on trial here; his guilt as a thief has already been assumed even though it was never properly proven in a legal sense.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:41 pm
And wait a fucking minute, this is a Walmart which means there's a very real chance they have a gun/sporting goods department somewhere with plenty of rifles and ammo to encourage thieves to stay put. Provided you've got one non-moron in the Walmart employee group (not the best odds), this should be wrapped up in two minutes or less.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:15 pm
Point being, you don't know.If he broke all his ribs by himself, then he's got the most brittle skeleton this side of ceramic.
Nothing I said contradicts this...Semantics aside, I believe the force they used to hold him down caused him to stop breathing. And in that case...
You're wrong. Had he stayed home and jerked off, he wouldn't be dead. He made a choice to break the law and knew it could result in a chase and when you're in a chase, injury is a risk. Should he have expected to die? No, but he created the entire situation himself.No, they didn't. His actions would've led to some DVDs getting swiped. Others' actions led to his death. His subpar attempt at theft ended when someone noticed it. The thief's actions led to him getting caught, not killed. Killed came from somewhere else.
Amazing how informed your opinion is considering you weren't there. Again, we don't know. You're just speculating, and I already pointed out that the article doesn't detail ANY violence on their part nor does the autopsy seem to...AT THIS POINT.Irrelevant unless they can demonstrate the perp was intending to cause bodily harm of any sort to them OR that they'd be financially liable to replace the cost of the merch with cash from their own pocket (otherwise there is not sufficient risk or threat). Seeing as how he was running away (badly, might I add) and unarmed...
I don't dispute this, but again, proper training might have been followed. We don't know yet.Then the store should hire real security personnel so they and their less trained employees don't find themselves in shit like this. Does Walmart hire random fucktards off the street to work their pharmacy? No, they require fucking proper knowledge and certs. Best Buy had a policy in place long ago that stated ONLY their security rent-a-cops could physically stop someone from leaving the store, even if they got caught on camera with stolen merch. It was specifically for things like this.
Hindsight being 20/20...Let him get back up and run away again. He'll get fifty feet before his pants fall back down. Shit, someone could've tracked him on foot while making a cell phone call to 911 and kept tabs on him. Fucking please.
I didn't realize you were there. My bad. When they finally caught up to him, how long did they just keep punching and kicking him? Why didn't they go for the face? Did he beg for his life since he was screaming threats at them? Have these three chased down and murdered other people?Considering they affected things so that he got a harsher penalty than the state would've administered, and given he wasn't threatening anyone's personal safety or violating their living space, yes, I think manslaughter charges and wrongful death suits are completely in play.
Not really what I said. The article doesn't indicate any reports of them beating him. It also doesn't indicate other injuries. To me that's very odd. Someone would have watched this chase, especially if he didn't get far. So witnesses. If they did beat on him, odds of them not hitting him elsewhere or leaving marks are nil. This is why I think this story stands out. I believe the three men might have acted as they were trained and simply detained him with no intent to harm. Was he injured previously and that combined with them holding him led to his death? Did he try to scream and couldn't?I get taking responsibility for the consequences of your choices. But why do you want to hold the thief responsible for the consequences of his actions but not hold the three people that may have killed him responsible for the consequences of theirs?
I'm just saying ease off the gas and let's find out what happened. If they were violent, manslaughter. If this was truly an accident, let's drop those charges a bit. Punish them, yes, but don't ruin their lives because that assholes chose to steal some DVDs. Not food. DVDs.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:35 pm
I will virtually guaran-goddamn-tee you those three had no significant security training whatsoever, otherwise it wouldn't take 3 of them to deal with Uncle Leo. This has nothing to do with intent or an actual beating (which I doubt occurred and at no point said did).I believe the three men might have acted as they were trained and simply detained him with no intent to harm.
Seeing as how that generally requires air and pressure from the diaphragm, I bet he couldn't.Did he try to scream and couldn't?
His injuries mainly came from other people. No one trips and dies of asphyxiation while a crowd is standing around. Might he have hurt himself falling? Sure. As much as the postmortem reveals? Fuck no. Not unless he fell 10 stories.Had he stayed home and jerked off, he wouldn't be dead. He made a choice to break the law and knew it could result in a chase and when you're in a chase, injury is a risk.
So squashing someone to the ground excessively against their will isn't violent?the article doesn't detail ANY violence on their part
Again, bullshit. The 3 amateurs AND Uncle Leo combined to make all this shit happen. One of them acted first, but that's about it. At the very least, all three employees have an outside chance at an involuntary manslaughter charge and they're all 100% open for wrongful death civil suits.No, but he created the entire situation himself.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:57 pm
Allowing theft is a good business model and helps the economy.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:09 pm
Dude wasn't getting away unless the cops took more than 10 minutes to respond because their second round of donuts wasn't finished ... hmm, I guess there's that possibility. And $400? Even on the off chance Uncle Leo gets away, Walmart corporate spends more than that every hour of every day bribing politicians.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:53 pm
Sure, that's what the investigation is for. But it does depend on how you define "accident". If they acted negligently in how they dealt with this pursuit of an innocent man (he must at this point be presumed innocent since he was never found guilty in a court of law) and that negligence lead to his death then that is no accident.I'm just saying ease off the gas and let's find out what happened. If they were violent, manslaughter. If this was truly an accident, let's drop those charges a bit.
Note that I'm not claiming the thief was actually innocent. I'm claiming that these three were not a court of law and therefor have no legal standing to declare him guilty. So they have to act at that point as if he may indeed be innocent and not do anything that can't be undone (like killing him) while trying to hold him until the police arrive.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:01 pm
He loves drugs so much that he breaks the law in order to use him, and he loves thieves so much he has low thresholds regarding what constitutes acceptable punishment of them. I wonder what he'd do if a thief was stealing his drug stash.
Re: Today's Moron Champion
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:28 pm
Oops.
Proof Canadians suck at everything not related to maple syrup or hockey.Canadian stuntman and sword swallower Ryan Stock has been impressing the judges all season by sticking items in his nose, putting a blow torch out on his tongue and holding a chainsaw in his mouth.
During Tuesday night's live trick, Stock swallowed a long rod with a small target on the end and bent forward for his fiancée, AmberLynn Walker, to take aim. Using a crossbow and a flaming arrow, Walker fired a bolt at the target and missed, striking Stock near his neck.