A jury has found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who was following him around a mall food court earlier this year

  • @FooBarrington
    link
    241 year ago

    It is in a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.

    It’s important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That’s the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.

    Yes, I do realise that, and I did realise it when I wrote my initial comment. What is your point? That someone can’t become dangerous towards you if your interaction lasts 30 seconds or less?

    He wasn’t being chased in a dark alley and stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.

    See, if your point only makes sense due to leaving out important details, it’s not a good point. He wasn’t shot because “someone played loud noises in his face”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -61 year ago

      a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.

      One of these things is not like the other

      • @FooBarrington
        link
        171 year ago

        Ah yes, let’s circlejerk around the definition of “civilization”.

        For the record, I’m not American (thank god!), but this is neither funny nor useful.

          • @FooBarrington
            link
            21 year ago

            Then provide the factual basis. What definition of “civilization” excludes societies with loose gun laws?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They did, right here.

              a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.

              One of these things is not like the other

              • @FooBarrington
                link
                21 year ago

                Are you trolling, or are you arguing on the level of a three year old?

                Words have meanings. They don’t necessarily have one single meaning, but generally words only make sense in the context of commonly-understood definitions. If I make up a new definition, it’s not useful to use it, as long as other people don’t use it.

                Now, I can argue that the sky is blurple, and I’m fully correct if I define blurple to be the color of the sky. But you will notice that this sentence doesn’t hold any meaning as long as blurple isn’t a commonly understood definition.

                You’re free to show that loose gun laws are commonly understood to be an argument against something being a civilized society. But until you do that, you’re doing what I said earlier: just circlejerking with neither funny nor useful descriptions.

                Do you understand now?