On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote: i keep laughing so hard at the word "crossbowman" being used in relevance to an event that occurred just recently.
honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
If people shot children with crossbows as much as rocks were thrown at cars, I'm pretty sure the crossbows would prove a bit more lethal.
San Diego "Teen". Believed to be shot by "Teens". I don't know how many times in the past 30 minutes I've read people rushing to the defense of the "small child" against the "grown man". The only place in the OP that mentions "child" is the fact that he went to a children's hospital, which is for anyone under 18.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that this is an awful case where both parties should have severe consequences. But please, I beg, at least read the articles before arguing your sides to the cases.
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote:honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
Well according to a majority of the people in this thread he was in the wrong, throwing rocks however only deserves a stern talking to. Therefore I deduce if I want to drive around I wont carry a crossbow, instead I'll carry a sack of rocks ready to return fire and defend myself.
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote: i keep laughing so hard at the word "crossbowman" being used in relevance to an event that occurred just recently.
honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
If people shot children with crossbows as much as rocks were thrown at cars, I'm pretty sure the crossbows would prove a bit more lethal.
Depends on the intent of the shooter, most people who actually own a crossbow and know how to load it and actually hit a target know how to aim therefore if they didn't want lethal shots I think the rock would still be more deadly
On August 31 2011 15:31 Leporello wrote: Crossbowman would have a very easy time convincing a jury of temporary insanity. Say he was on a hunting trip with a friend. Some brat throws a rock at his car while they're driving. The selfish, reckless, violent act of the kid drives him into a high-powered road-rage, which is a very well documented syndrome. He grabs his crossbow just to fire a shot to scare the kid and teach him a lesson. But he missed. Oops. No problem, I'd let him off. **** that kid, seriously. If you want to get shot at by a stranger, there is probably no better way of going about it than what that kid was doing.
A man who, when he gets angry, fires lethal weapons at children should not be allowed to walk free.
On August 31 2011 15:14 Fission wrote: So many clueless, self-righteously moral whiteknights in this thread. If you can't understand that the reason this is amusing is because of the absurdity of it being a crossbow, fired from a moving car, and not the fact that some kid who was trying to hurt innocent people on a highway by throwing rocks at their moving vehicles was hurt, then you are retarded. And by the way, if you're traveling at highway speed, and a large rock hits your windshield, it's extremely dangerous. The violence isn't funny, it being a crossbow is. If it was a bow and arrow, it would be even funnier.
Why am I clueless and retarded for not having the same humour as you? What amuses me is how people on forums seemingly think that everyone who aren't exactly like themselves are retarded/clueless. Oh, and if you don't understand why that's amusing you're a poopface with blue moisty ears and a virgin (this totally makes sense, right?).
San Diego "Teen". Believed to be shot by "Teens". I don't know how many times in the past 30 minutes I've read people rushing to the defense of the "small child" against the "grown man". The only place in the OP that mentions "child" is the fact that he went to a children's hospital, which is for anyone under 18.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that this is an awful case where both parties should have severe consequences. But please, I beg, at least read the articles before arguing your sides to the cases.
Alright, replace every instance of child and [adjective] child with "dumbass" and it is still not okay.
I would be pretty concerned for my personal safety if a stranger, out of the blue, threw a cinderblock or whatever good-sized chunk of rock at my windshield.
Not saying the act of impromptu archery was justified, but its not like the victim was committing a harmless prank either.
On August 31 2011 15:31 Leporello wrote: Crossbowman would have a very easy time convincing a jury of temporary insanity. Say he was on a hunting trip with a friend. Some brat throws a rock at his car while they're driving. The selfish, reckless, violent act of the kid drives him into a high-powered road-rage, which is a very well documented syndrome. He grabs his crossbow just to fire a shot to scare the kid and teach him a lesson. But he missed. Oops. No problem, I'd let him off. **** that kid, seriously. If you want to get shot at by a stranger, there is probably no better way of going about it than what that kid was doing.
A man who, when he gets angry, fires lethal weapons at children should not be allowed to walk free.
But by the same token, two children who are throwing rocks at cars, and are able to cause multiple deaths, should not be allowed to walk free.
Good on the guy, though maybe a threatening tirade would've been more appropriate than shooting the kid.
On August 31 2011 15:31 Leporello wrote: Crossbowman would have a very easy time convincing a jury of temporary insanity. Say he was on a hunting trip with a friend. Some brat throws a rock at his car while they're driving. The selfish, reckless, violent act of the kid drives him into a high-powered road-rage, which is a very well documented syndrome. He grabs his crossbow just to fire a shot to scare the kid and teach him a lesson. But he missed. Oops. No problem, I'd let him off. **** that kid, seriously. If you want to get shot at by a stranger, there is probably no better way of going about it than what that kid was doing.
A man who, when he gets angry, fires lethal weapons at children should not be allowed to walk free.
Looks like it was not a man after all and just a couple of dumb teenagers.
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote:honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
Well according to a majority of the people in this thread he was in the wrong, throwing rocks however only deserves a stern talking to. Therefore I deduce if I want to drive around I wont carry a crossbow, instead I'll carry a sack of rocks ready to return fire and defend myself.
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote: i keep laughing so hard at the word "crossbowman" being used in relevance to an event that occurred just recently.
honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
If people shot children with crossbows as much as rocks were thrown at cars, I'm pretty sure the crossbows would prove a bit more lethal.
Depends on the intent of the shooter, most people who actually own a crossbow and know how to load it and actually hit a target know how to aim therefore if they didn't want lethal shots I think the rock would still be more deadly
Oh hey, doesn't that explain why the kid deserves a talking to whereas the crossbow shooter gets jail time.
On August 31 2011 15:28 Bobgrimly wrote: Its funny. If you do something wrong and suffer a consequence it is funny to other people. Doesn't matter how severe the consequence, other people like to see wrong doers suffer.
If the kid hadn't been doing anything wrong no one would be laughing. Moral of the story. Do wrong things and when it backfires people will laugh.
There's that, but there's also the knowledge that the rock thrower isn't seriously harmed that allays any concern for him.
If the story were "Boy throws rocks at car and gets hit by banana; is in comatose state" it wouldn't be that funny (to me at least). It's just that since we know everyone involved is more or less safe now, it's pretty easy to laugh off.
On August 31 2011 15:22 Slaughter wrote: Crazy story, I mean its just weird as hell....A crossbow? Really who has that just sitting in their car. I guess its the same kind of crazy person who would shoot at a freaking kid for throwing rocks. Damn people are crazy. I know the kid was being an asshole for doing that (plus it could cause a crash) but seriously? Way to crazily overreact. I'm just thinking "why?" Why throw rocks at cars (seriously even as a kid I knew that doing that was both assholish and dangerous) and Why would it be worth possibly killing someone over? The kid deserved a scolding/punishment from his parents not a crossbow bolt to his chest. WTF is with people I know we like to think we are more "civilized" then people of the past but we really aren't. We just have greater technology but human behavior will always comedown to careless disregard for others (when you look at humanity as a whole).
I'd like to think the kid would deserve more than a scolding from his parents for recklessly endangering the lives (and property) of others for his own amusement, but maybe that's just me.
Anyway, odds are the guy is not crazy and just seriously overreacted for whatever reason. Yes, he deserves to punished to the fullest extent of the law, but I don't think making a bad decision in the heat of the moment makes him some kind of a deranged psychopath.
Well thats why I also had /punishment in there. No one punishment works for every kid as different kids will respond to different punishments. The important thing is a way to have the kid learn from his mistake and to realize what he was doing was wrong/reckless and having that lesson taught by his parents by whatever method works best in getting the point across.
On August 31 2011 15:14 Fission wrote: So many clueless, self-righteously moral whiteknights in this thread. If you can't understand that the reason this is amusing is because of the absurdity of it being a crossbow, fired from a moving car, and not the fact that some kid who was trying to hurt innocent people on a highway by throwing rocks at their moving vehicles was hurt, then you are retarded. And by the way, if you're traveling at highway speed, and a large rock hits your windshield, it's extremely dangerous. The violence isn't funny, it being a crossbow is. If it was a bow and arrow, it would be even funnier.
Why am I clueless and retarded for not having the same humour as you? What amuses me is how people on forums seemingly think that everyone who aren't exactly like themselves are retarded/clueless. Oh, and if you don't understand why that's amusing you're a poopface with blue moisty ears and a virgin (this totally makes sense, right?).
I am absolutely unconcerned whether you find it funny or not. The people I'm speaking about are the ones who are accusing people like me of being "sick, inhuman monsters etc etc". What I find amusing is how you took a post that probably isn't even being directed at you, and somehow took offense to it. You understand WHY I find it to be funny, correct? You might disagree, or not, or anything in between, and that's great.
Edit: summary: hurting people is bad. absurd things are funny->the situation is absurd-> therefore I find it is funny-> people don't understand that and mistakenly assume people find killing children funny and overreact -> I am annoyed at them
man so many people are shouting, he is a kid its not his faulth, bla bla bla, seriously kids are crazy these days, and society is even worse, its not his faulth he killed your sister while she was driving, he is a kid he doesnt know better...
your saying potentially killing some1 only deserves a stern talking too? .... i say parents should start beating some sense into there kids again and police should be scaring them pissless >.> throw some of those kids in jail for 5years and see if they still try that shit,,
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote:honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
Well according to a majority of the people in this thread he was in the wrong, throwing rocks however only deserves a stern talking to. Therefore I deduce if I want to drive around I wont carry a crossbow, instead I'll carry a sack of rocks ready to return fire and defend myself.
On August 31 2011 15:33 TwoToneTerran wrote:
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote: i keep laughing so hard at the word "crossbowman" being used in relevance to an event that occurred just recently.
honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
If people shot children with crossbows as much as rocks were thrown at cars, I'm pretty sure the crossbows would prove a bit more lethal.
Depends on the intent of the shooter, most people who actually own a crossbow and know how to load it and actually hit a target know how to aim therefore if they didn't want lethal shots I think the rock would still be more deadly
Oh hey, doesn't that explain why the kid deserves a talking to whereas the crossbow shooter gets jail time.
I find it hard to believe that two teenagers would throw rocks at a car without malicious intent.
I'd wager anyone who thinks this is funny has obviously never handled a crossbow. I mean, it seems comical if it were fictitious, but i can assure you it wouldn't be comical to anyone that saw it happen.
Crossbows aren't just things you hear about in medieval stories. People use them still and they are extremely potent weapons. This is the same as the guy rolling down the window and shooting the kid with a gun.
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote: i keep laughing so hard at the word "crossbowman" being used in relevance to an event that occurred just recently.
honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
If people shot children with crossbows as much as rocks were thrown at cars, I'm pretty sure the crossbows would prove a bit more lethal.
It's not the potential for lethality, it's the frequencies of the occurrences. There are plenty of stories regarding injuries or deaths due to rocks thrown at cars; however, this is the first time I have heard of a driveby crossbow shooting.
Imagine if the story was "kid throws rock, gets hit by driveby rpg." It would be even more ludicrous and garner some chuckles
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote:honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
Well according to a majority of the people in this thread he was in the wrong, throwing rocks however only deserves a stern talking to. Therefore I deduce if I want to drive around I wont carry a crossbow, instead I'll carry a sack of rocks ready to return fire and defend myself.
On August 31 2011 15:33 TwoToneTerran wrote:
On August 31 2011 15:32 ProxiEchoes wrote: i keep laughing so hard at the word "crossbowman" being used in relevance to an event that occurred just recently.
honestly i think the rock throwing is more dangerous, people die from that all the time. what are the chances of killing a kid with a cross bow out of a moving car, less id say.
If people shot children with crossbows as much as rocks were thrown at cars, I'm pretty sure the crossbows would prove a bit more lethal.
Depends on the intent of the shooter, most people who actually own a crossbow and know how to load it and actually hit a target know how to aim therefore if they didn't want lethal shots I think the rock would still be more deadly
Oh hey, doesn't that explain why the kid deserves a talking to whereas the crossbow shooter gets jail time.
I don't know what warped place you live (Yes, I do, but not the point), but where I live you are actually able to defend yourself.
A weapon is a weapon. If you decide to use a weapon against me then I respond by defending myself. If, for example you have a gun then I don't care if you are 13 or 56, if you shoot it at me I will defend myself.
Like someone else said, no shortage of white knights in this thread. Stockpiling rocks to carry because that's only way you are allowed to defend yourself. Or wait, am I not allowed to do that? Am I also not allowed to physically interact with him? OK, I'll just sit here while he throws rocks at my car. I... you know, never mind.
San Diego "Teen". Believed to be shot by "Teens". I don't know how many times in the past 30 minutes I've read people rushing to the defense of the "small child" against the "grown man". The only place in the OP that mentions "child" is the fact that he went to a children's hospital, which is for anyone under 18.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that this is an awful case where both parties should have severe consequences. But please, I beg, at least read the articles before arguing your sides to the cases.
Alright, replace every instance of child and [adjective] child with "dumbass" and it is still not okay.
EPT
I know we like to think we are more "civilized" then people of the past but we really aren't. We just have greater technology but human behavior will always comedown to careless disregard for others (when you look at humanity as a whole).
