Halloween shooter is an evil, evil man

[Neverfly]

Anyway- on target:
While if shown that the shooter did not call out, or was not following safety, he mistook the appearance to be something else, decided to git rid o' th' varmint and ended up shooting a family member- we can say he was reckless.

Here's my question: How does it help the family, to put another member of their family through more trauma and trial? I get the reckless endangerment charge- but why add up as many charges as possible?
Does it help or hinder? How does this affect the taxpayers? The costs of the trial, defense and prosecution and then, since these are felonies, the cost of taking care of the prisoner in prison for probably a lengthy term. So, he's out of the picture to do anything worthy for the family, including help work to recoup attorney fees.
If he was some stranger- murderer- I'm sure many would be totally ok with that, of course, but he's a member of that family that accidentally shot another member.

 

[Balerion]

More like: You've invented the facts to suit your position then created a very long and incoherent post explaining such. You're right- I don't have a good response to that. It's not a cheap shot- it's the validity as to why I didn't bother some long reply.

Another lie. Wow! Anything so as not to concede a point, eh?

 

[Balerion]

Anyway- on target:
While if shown that the shooter did not call out, or was not following safety, he mistook the appearance to be something else, decided to git rid o' th' varmint and ended up shooting a family member- we can say he was reckless.

We can say it now. The clue is that he shot his cousin. Maybe it's so obvious that you're missing it, but there it is.

Here's my question: How does it help the family, to put another member of their family through more trauma and trial? I get the reckless endangerment charge- but why add up as many charges as possible?
Does it help or hinder? How does this affect the taxpayers? The costs of the trial, defense and prosecution and then, since these are felonies, the cost of taking care of the prisoner in prison for probably a lengthy term. So, he's out of the picture to do anything worthy for the family, including help work to recoup attorney fees.
If he was some stranger- murderer- I'm sure many would be totally ok with that, of course, but he's a member of that family that accidentally shot another member.

It isn't about helping the family, so asking how it helps the family is irrelevant. If you're going to ask that question, you might as well ask how it helps the family that one of their own shot one of their children for no good reason. The rest is just subterfuge; the cost of maintaining order is high, but it's necessary. You haven't done anything to show that why he shouldn't be subject to those charges. All you've done is whine that it isn't fair to the family, but as I've said, that's a non-starter because this whole thing could have been avoided if the moron didn't go skunk hunting with kids around.

 

[Neverfly]

Another lie. Wow! Anything so as not to concede a point, eh?

It's really sad that you can ignore your own behavior to the point of calling another person a liar.

Incriminating photo's? You think I was baiting you. It wasn't baiting- it's showing the absurdity of how blind you can be about yourself.

There is nothing to concede, Ballerio.
You're 'facts' are invented. I cannot work with invented facts and if you only wish to find an argument- get the hell out of my thread.

 

[Balerion]

It's really sad that you can ignore your own behavior to the point of calling another person a liar.

Incriminating photo's? You think I was baiting you. It wasn't baiting- it's showing the absurdity of how blind you can be about yourself.

There is nothing to concede, Ballerio.
You're 'facts' are invented. I cannot work with invented facts and if you only wish to find an argument- get the hell out of my thread.

So you lie and you don't even attempt to make a case for yourself? Post reported.

 

[Neverfly]

So you lie and you don't even attempt to make a case for yourself? Post reported.

Sure thing.

Except that you forget where I quoted you directly in having invented the facts. So, I can call you a liar just as easily for claiming I did not make a case when I clearly did make a case in post number 35. Shown was that you speculated First Degree Murder, etc, not to be fair, but only to support your claims.
I also clarified how it is that you have no idea whether he followed safety procedures or not- though we can guess that he did not- including an example, considering how one article claimed the girl was "hide and seek" and may have not responded to calls and give away her hiding position. It is clearly an invented supposition on your part as to what safety procedures he followed (or not) and this is shown to demonstrate the behavior I properly accused you of.

This is where your ability to read and comprehend falls down. You should have tried doing that before calling someone a liar.

 

[Balerion]

Except that you forget where I quoted you directly in having invented the facts. So, I can call you a liar just as easily for claiming I did not make a case when I clearly did make a case in post number 35. Shown was that you speculated First Degree Murder, etc, not to be fair, but only to support your claims.

I'm sorry, you're not making any sense. No one was killed, so how did I speculate that he was guilty of first degree murder? I'm looking through Post 35, but I don't see it.

I also clarified how it is that you have no idea whether he followed safety procedures or not- though we can guess that he did not- including an example, considering how one article claimed the girl was "hide and seek" and may have not responded to calls and give away her hiding position. It is clearly an invented supposition on your part as to what safety procedures he followed (or not) and this is shown to demonstrate the behavior I properly accused you of.

No, this just speaks to your lack of comprehension of this issue. Just because she was playing hide and seek and may not have responded (which we don't know, but again, you have no problem simply assuming this is what happened) doesn't absolve him of aggravated assault or reckless endangerment. Nor does it absolve him morally. Nor does it mean he fulfilled his responsibility in terms of exercising proper caution in firing his weapon. It means exactly the opposite of that. The fact that he didn't make absolutely certain it was a skunk and not a human being means he was not careful enough. I have no idea why this is so hard for you to understand.

This is where your ability to read and comprehend falls down. You should have tried doing that before calling someone a liar.

You keep saying that, and it sounds clumsier and clumsier, so perhaps you shouldn't keep insisting on calling me stupid when you're having trouble putting together a sentence.

 

[Neverfly]

Do I really have to hold your hand and guide you through what you said as well as what I said?

I'm sorry, you're not making any sense. No one was killed, so how did I speculate that he was guilty of first degree murder? I'm looking through Post 35, but I don't see it.

I'm not surprised. But it is in there. Clear as a bell.
I quoted you saying this:

Also, what if he was trying to hurt her?

This shows a pre-meditated attempt on her life directly- which if it had been successful would be First Degree murder. Granted- I forgot, briefly, that the child was not killed. All this talk of shooting someone and my brain went on autopilot.
But Your speculation of his intentions to kill/maim/hurt remains the same.

Let's do it again with bold and underline:

Also, what if he was trying to hurt her?

Did you miss it that time?

No, this just speaks to your lack of comprehension of this issue. Just because she was playing hide and seek and may not have responded (which we don't know, but again, you have no problem simply assuming this is what happened)

"Oh, why you little liar..."
No, I do not assume that happened. This, again, shows your failure to comprehend the posts. No, I showed that as an example of how you can not know whether he called out, whether he followed reasonable precautions or not at this time.
Neither of us know whether he did or did not, yet you repeatedly assume/speculate/state as (invented) fact that he did not follow any procedures whatsoever. I have made it clear you cannot know that at this time.

You keep saying that, and it sounds clumsier and clumsier, so perhaps you shouldn't keep insisting on calling me stupid

To act as you act:
No, I never once called you stupid. Quote me where I said you were "stupid."

It's a bitch when someone acts like you, huh?

No Balerion, I've stated and demonstrated the failures in your reading comprehension.

 

[Balerion]

Do I really have to hold your hand and guide you through what you said as well as what I said?

I'm not surprised. But it is in there. Clear as a bell.
I quoted you saying this:

This shows a pre-meditated attempt on her life directly- which if it had been successful would be First Degree murder. Granted- I forgot, briefly, that the child was not killed. All this talk of shooting someone and my brain went on autopilot.
But Your speculation of his intentions to kill/maim/hurt remains the same.

Let's do it again with bold and underline:

Did you miss it that time?

You know how I can tell when you're lying? When you have trouble expressing yourself clearly. It's almost as if your moral compass locks your brain down in protest when you're being shady. I've seen you write some very articulate posts here, truly remarkable stuff, yet when you're lying about what I said, you can barely get your point across. For instance, this nonsense about me accusing him of first-degree murder. Obviously I did no such thing, and the passage you've quoted is not even an accusation at all, but merely a question. That's why I missed it: because it isn't there!

Let's have some context, shall we? From post 30:

So, they inappropriately charge the man with higher crimes than he can be said to have committed. What are they going to deter here? Skunk shootings?

Where is it said that he's charged with higher crimes than he actually committed? Perhaps you missed the bit where I pointed out that assault does not always take intent into account? Also, what if he was trying to hurt her? Oh, is this where the benefit of the doubt part comes in? I can't accept that, sorry.

In context, I wasn't doing anything carelessly or recklessly, I was merely addressing your naive insistence that he was being charged for things he didn't actually do. The "What if he meant to do it?" was a reminder that you don't actually know why he did what he did, and if his intent was to hurt her, he could get charged with attempted murder.

Which brings me to my next point, and why I'm convinced you're at heart a good guy who doesn't enjoy the self-degredating behavior his ego forces him into: If I actually were accusing him of anything, it would have been attempted murder, not murder in the first degree.

"Oh, why you little liar..."
No, I do not assume that happened. This, again, shows your failure to comprehend the posts. No, I showed that as an example of how you can not know whether he called out, whether he followed reasonable precautions or not at this time.

You say that, yet you talk in practical terms as if he did. "Benefit of the doubt," remember? You're assuming he was reasonably cautious, when there's ample evidence that he did not.

Neither of us know whether he did or did not, yet you repeatedly assume/speculate/state as (invented) fact that he did not follow any procedures whatsoever. I have made it clear you cannot know that at this time.

There's nothing invented about it. I'm basing that conclusion on the evidence. What evidence? Um, how about the 8-year-old gunshot victim?

To act as you act:
No, I never once called you stupid. Quote me where I said you were "stupid."

You implied it. And you know it.

It's a bitch when someone acts like you, huh?

Show me where I act like that. Quote me where I--FUCK! Nevermind.

No Balerion, I've stated and demonstrated the failures in your reading comprehension.

No, you've embarrassed yourself because you're too proud to admit you lost. It's as simple as that, and for that reason, I'm done with this.

 

[Neverfly]

You know how I can tell when you're lying? When you have trouble expressing yourself clearly.

Yeah, ok... Mom.

It's almost as if your moral compass locks your brain down in protest when you're being shady. I've seen you write some very articulate posts here, truly remarkable stuff, yet when you're lying about what I said, you can barely get your point across. For instance, this nonsense about me accusing him of first-degree murder. Obviously I did no such thing, and the passage you've quoted is not even an accusation at all, but merely a question. That's why I missed it: because it isn't there!

Read back where I realized I went on autopilot thinking the shooting victim had died. So yes, you got me there, but I also pointed out that the speculation is the same.
Are my ears still twitching?

In context, I wasn't doing anything carelessly or recklessly, I was merely addressing your naive insistence that he was being charged for things he didn't actually do. The "What if he meant to do it?" was a reminder that you don't actually know why he did what he did, and if his intent was to hurt her, he could get charged with attempted murder.

This does not justify extra charges. Was Cheney charged in that hunting accident? He shot a dude in the face.
Why was he not charged but this guy was not only charged, but charged three different and heavy charges?
I can see reckless behavior. But why aggravated assault?

Which brings me to my next point, and why I'm convinced you're at heart a good guy who doesn't enjoy the self-degredating behavior his ego forces him into:

Sadly, Balerion- I could have said your ego forces you into "self-depreciating or degregating or whatever you wanted to say" too.

You say that, yet you talk in practical terms as if he did. "Benefit of the doubt," remember? You're assuming he was reasonably cautious, when there's ample evidence that he did not.

No, I pointed out from the outset that none of us know if he did or not. It would justify the reckless endangerment if he did not.

So why the other two charges?

There's nothing invented about it. I'm basing that conclusion on the evidence. What evidence? Um, how about the 8-year-old gunshot victim?

That's only evidence that the shooting victim got shot. It's not evidence that he took no pre-cautions, considering that even OSHA safety standards, even if followed by the book, are no guarantee that people won't have accidents on occasion. Sometimes machines fail unexpectedly, things happen. The only thing the victim shows is that the victim wound up shot. To jump to conclusions based on that is to invent the facts. Why are you not getting this?

No, you've embarrassed yourself because you're too proud to admit you lost. It's as simple as that, and for that reason, I'm done with this.

You sound like a C.T.'ist up and declaring victory in order to convince people that victory exists.
Nonsensical Red Herring.