Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I watched that video and I honestly don't see anything wrong with what those guys did. They didn't point the gun at him, they gave him fair warning about their boundaries (which were both reasonable and legal), and he crossed those boundaries. Mattress dude totally had it coming.

Sounds like they didn't want to face a fine from mattress dude disposing of his trash illegally and he thought he could bluster his way into forcing them to accept his criminal behavior. Smart move trying to intimidate the people carrying massive firearms. He fricked around and found out.

But of course lots of soft-hearted (and soft-headed) leftoids will completely miss the point and be like "ZOMG I can't believe they shot him over a mattress!" They didn't shoot him over a mattress, they shot him over a principle, which is absolutely the best possible reason to shoot somebody. When you give people even a single inch to violate your (legal) boundaries, they will always try to take more and more because they learn that you tolerate that behavior. But when you shoot them dead immediately the second they first step across your boundaries, the survivors will gradually learn to adjust their behavior accordingly.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

lol some white trash hicks pull guns on some unarmed loudmouth who doesn't even swing at them and they did nothing wrong?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The dude they shot had a rap sheet 20 miles long. They did te world a favor putting him down.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you dipshit, no one is obligated to let someone take a swing first, and the bat was in a ready position the entire time. the bat even gets thrown at them, he was obviously threatening them off screen.

did you even watch the video, or do you think it didn't happen because the trashy girlfriend didn't point her camera at the guy with a bat?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Did you even watch the video

No

:marseygigachad:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's quite possible to kill somebody with a single punch: that's why police rules of engagement suggest that cops open fire before a perp gets within 21 feet of them.

And yeah, they may be white trash hicks, but so what? Mattress dude was the one who was breaking the law; they were merely enforcing it. If we want our society to flourish, people should learn to fear the consequences of breaking the law, and repeated interactions like this help them to do so. I may not be a "trash hick" like these fine gentlemen but if somebody violated my rights, I would kill as many people as necessary until they regretted their choices, whether that was one man or one billion. I believe that my civil rights are more important than literally any number of human lives, and if other people don't want to die, they need to learn to respect my rights and not force me into situations where I have to choose between allowing them to live or enforcing my rights, because I will always choose the latter option.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Tueller drill applies to people armed with knives and makes no particular recommendations, instead highlighting the average draw time of an officer as it relates to distance crossed by an armed knife attacked.

It isn’t applicable.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the crazy mattress guy could have wrestled the gun away from one of these two fine gentlemen if he got within three feet of them, and therefore they were justified in establishing three feet as a boundary for an obviously aggressive mentally ill person. Cops shoot people all the time on much flimsier justification than that. Plus, mattress guy was holding a baseball bat at the time. Didn't you even read the article? It's not shown in the video because mattress guys hands are out of frame but numerous eyewitnesses corroborated it. I'm pretty sure a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon and is adequate justification to use lethal force.

I think you just don't like these people because they weren't wearing shirts and they look like the classical "redneck" stereotype. If you closed your eyes when watching that video and listened only to what they're saying instead of judging them on their appearance, you'd probably be a lot more sympathetic to them.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Two wrongs make a right, said the redditor.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, Redditors are kitties so they say the opposite of that. They truly don't understand that "tit for tat" is the only way to deal with mentally ill narcissists. And honestly, tit for tat works pretty well with nice people too. The only people who ever seem to object to that ethical code are people with shitty tits.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reddit loves to see someone get unnecessarily harmed in an act of retaliation. It's something I particularly hate about that site. I often considered making a sub either about that moral flaw or the fact they think everything is attempted murder.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Perhaps I've simply been visiting the wrong subs

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Also, if you ever see a shirtless man with a Mossberg shockwave, you know this is not a reasonable person and you need to leave

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In general I agree with you, but in this case, I was honestly surprised at how polite and articulate they were. I hope this doesn't make me sound like a classist snob, but I definitely did not expect such a reasonable attitude from shirtless people carrying that level of firepower. Guess that's my New England yuppie indoctrination talking, LOL

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Genuinely mentally ill and should be put down.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He was put down.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And one day you too will be.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And I hope on that day, I go down surrounded by the broken bodies of my enemies.

:#marseywholesome:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyd#ead::#marseydead::mar#seyunpettable::marsey#dead::marse#ydead:

Rdrama's second mass shooter is born

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As a guncel, the way I see it if you pull out a gun during a non physical argument, that is a clear escalation and physical threat and you are the one who deserves to be shot. :marseyshrug:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But I can't conceal and also look tactical when I put on my WROL SHTF maximalist-minimalist Gucci plate carrier and confront suspected jaywalkers with a H&K M416 that I financed for 96 months using Klarna

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If they had pointed the gun, or made a threat like "move the mattress or I'll shoot you" then I would agree with you. They did neither of those things. It was pretty clear to me that the guns were just there so that they could defend their physical safety if the confrontation got too heated and loudmouth mattress guy attacked them - which he did.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nah. Hard pass. If you pull a gun on someone without their being an imminent threat of bodily harm, you are now the aggressor and you deserve to get shot yourself. And before you go "wHaT aBoUt OpEn CaRrY" 1) open carry is stupid 2) keep it holstered or slung. Having it "at the ready" is the threat.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They were doing him a favor and letting him know that if he physically attacked them, they would kill him. If they had concealed the guns, he might have been even more likely to physically attack them.

It's interesting that you interpret them being nice as a threat. A rattlesnake shaking its rattle may make you feel intimidated, but the purpose of the rattle is actually quite polite - it's letting you know that violence is imminent. I'd prefer to be given a warning beforehand that I'm treading on somebody's boundaries rather than get a nasty surprise after the fact.

Also, how are they supposed to keep their guns holstered when they don't have holsters? Shit, man, they don't even have shirts.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Killing your neighbour and ruining your own life on principle to own the leftoids

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How are they ruining their own lives? Any reasonably good defense lawyer ought to get them off, and if they're smart, they can work the system like Kyle Rittenhouse did and hopefully get some fame and money out of it. Shit, I would donate to their legal defense fund.

And I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing your neighbor, if he's violating your rights and deliberately trying to pick a fight with you. In fact, if he's an butthole, then killing him is a good deed because then he won't disrespect anybody else's rights.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Killing you is a good thing because you wont be disagreeing with anybody else's comments.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Am I violating anybody else's civil rights by disagreeing with them, or am I just hurting their precious feefees?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseya#gree:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeh the guy was very confrontational for someone who knew he was doing something illegal. I think the standard response is always "they should have called the police".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But if they called the police, then this guy would just deny it was his mattress or something like that, and then he'd continue to pull shit like this. This way, they not only have absolute proof that he was breaking the law, but also they're never going to have problems with that neighbor ever again. If some narcissist violates your rights and gives you a legal excuse to kill them, you should always take them up on their generous offer. This way, you not only remove the narcissist from your life more quickly, but you also acquire a reputation as somebody that narcissists don't want to frick with, which means that you'll have to deal with a lot fewer of these situations in the future.

Seems to me like they made the smart move. Sure, they'll get into a little legal hassle, but at the end of the day this seems like a perfectly clear case of self-defense.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>If some narcissist violates your rights and gives you a legal excuse to kill them, you should always take them up on their generous offer.

Nah King, it would have been a lot easier to escalate more lightly. They wouldn't have years in jail/pay god knows what for lawyers if they'd just taken some dog shit and thrown it at his car. Beyond that, you don't know if the chud who got capped was the person in the wrong based off a one minute video, do you? Was his mattress perhaps payback for a prior transgression?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, I didn't just watch the video, I also read the article (which mentions that he was holding a baseball bat while yelling at these men - something that the video didn't show). Anyway, you don't get to break the law as "payback" for past transgressions (unless somebody broke the law to wrong you - but that's more of a moral principle than a legal one). Justice is subjective, but the law should always be objective. The purpose of the law shouldn't be to preserve human life because not everybody values human life - and there's nothing wrong with that. When you optimize lifemaxxing over lawmaxxing, you are unfairly imposing your moral values onto me. I don't believe that human life carries any inherent value unless the people in question are good (ie, lawful) human beings. If they're bad (ie, lawbreakers), then they deserve to die and killing them is a good thing.

The purpose of our legal system should not be to preserve life but rather to preserve law and order, so that even if there are people whom I want to kill (or who want to kill me) I can coexist with them safely as long as everybody obeys the law. The second somebody steps out of line and treads on my rights, their lives are potentially forfeit and they should be made thoroughly aware of that. Good fences make good neighbors.

Basically the only way you can possibly think these guys were in the wrong is if you do not believe in the "Stand your ground" principle. I absolutely do believe in it, because if you're unwilling or unable to defend your rights then you don't really have rights in the first place. "Duty to retreat" is for kitties and slaves.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah I don't really care about some r-slur dying over a property dispute, I'm just saying that your idea of "well you should just shoot people for mildly trampling your rights" is going to make your life a lot harder than just throwing some nails in their driveway or something. We live in a society and whatnot

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"well you should just shoot people for mildly trampling your rights"

>Angry man is trying to violate the law by illegally dumping waste

>Angry man has a baseball bat and threatens to kill you and your nephew when confronted on his illegal behavior

>You warn angry man not to come within 3 feet of you

>He does so while continuing to threaten you

I'm sorry, how do you view that as mildly trampling your rights? The way I see it, mattress guy was just about to attack them and may even have taken a swing near the end of the video

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.