Hey Guys, We Got One!

[Papageorgio]

Hey Joe, I think you've put in some great effort here. An entire thread of you turning perpetrators into victims.

Great to watch.

Of course, we all know that if those had been HILLARY signs you'd be yukking it up big time.

Love it.

I'd have the same position. We have clear laws that you don't create booby traps that can injure people.

We have clear laws that you don't violate others property.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

You fucking ignorant moron.

I'm not voting for Trump.

Damn you are lost.

If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting for Trump.

Boo hoo hoo.

I guess I'll have a black sedan parked in front of the house when I get home.

I'm looking up in the sky and see a helicopter in the distance.

Is that you Joe?

Should I be of concern what I say on the Internet?

Is the Stazi monitoring my phone calls?

Why are you concerned that I won't vote for Clinton?

I'm in Maryland. Clinton gets all of the electoral votes. Whether I vote for her or not.

You can come out from under your bed. The sky is blue and the world won't end anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

[westwall]

Actually it is your profound arrogance, and ignorance of the law that is funny. No surprise there, any douchebag, such as yourself, who advocates terrorist activities against people with opposing political ideas, as YOU have, clearly is too stupid to be taken seriously on legal matters. I, on the other hand, am an Expert Witness and have actually testified in open court on many occasions. Something you haven't done. I can assure you that what I presented falls under the "reasonable person" standard of evidence.

Oh, you're an "expert witness". Did you actually look up the precedent I cited.

I'm going to help you out here, buddy.

Montana homeowner who set trap for burglar is charged with killing German exchange student

Booby Trap Nailed Crook, and His Victim

Is A Young Man Few Know Example Of Large Insurance Settlements

Of course. I am very familiar with them. None of them even remotely apply to the situation in hand no matter how much you want them to be. You're simply a terrorist who is pissed off that someone was able to legally defend themselves. Your dumb fuck relative is a loser. JUST. LIKE. YOU!

 

[westwall]

Hey Joe, I think you've put in some great effort here. An entire thread of you turning perpetrators into victims.

Great to watch.

Of course, we all know that if those had been HILLARY signs you'd be yukking it up big time.

Love it.

I'd have the same position. We have clear laws that you don't create booby traps that can injure people.

We have clear laws that you don't violate others property.

joey thinks he's entitled to. Just like any other three year old.

 

[JoeB131]

Since you lost your original argument you now move the goal posts. Put up your "l have my head stuck up Hillary's ass" and hope you can film someone running it over.

Guy, the original argument I made was nail boy broke the law creating a dangerous situation.

Which he did. Which I backed up by citing cases where people who injured or killed others by setting traps were held criminally or civilly liable.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course. I am very familiar with them. None of them even remotely apply to the situation in hand no matter how much you want them to be. You're simply a terrorist who is pissed off that someone was able to legally defend themselves. Your dumb fuck relative is a loser. JUST. LIKE. YOU!

Not sure how this became "My relative" (Sadly, a lot of my relatives are Trump supporters who probably won't understand why they'll lose their nice unionjobs next year if Trump is elected.)

 

[Papageorgio]

Since you lost your original argument you now move the goal posts. Put up your "l have my head stuck up Hillary's ass" and hope you can film someone running it over.

Guy, the original argument I made was nail boy broke the law creating a dangerous situation.

Which he did. Which I backed up by citing cases where people who injured or killed others by setting traps were held criminally or civilly liable.

So going off the road into someone's lawn is not creating a dangerous situation? You are laughable!

The idiot broke the law and you are pissed at the guy that was minding his own business. He must be you or your relative.

 

[JoeB131]

So going off the road into someone's lawn is not creating a dangerous situation? You are laughable!

Sure it is. And if someone did it and a cop saw them, they should be ticketed and fined.

That wasn't the point. BUt I'm getting the feeling if I explained it to you again, your learning disability still wouldn't process it.

 

[Papageorgio]

So going off the road into someone's lawn is not creating a dangerous situation? You are laughable!

Sure it is. And if someone did it and a cop saw them, they should be ticketed and fined.

That wasn't the point. BUt I'm getting the feeling if I explained it to you again, your learning disability still wouldn't process it.

He created the danger, he would be held liable if anything happened, being a moron is no excuse to violate the law.

 

[JoeB131]

He created the danger, he would be held liable if anything happened, being a moron is no excuse to violate the law.

The thing is, the person who created the dangerous situation would STILL be liable for injuries.

Suppose it was an ambulance or a fire truck that rolled up on that lawn responding to an emergency situation.... The problem with a "Trap" like that is that it doesn't discriminate between a political prankster, a first responder or some kids riding their bikes.

If you don't comprehend this, it's because you are kind of stupid.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

So going off the road into someone's lawn is not creating a dangerous situation? You are laughable!

Sure it is. And if someone did it and a cop saw them, they should be ticketed and fined.

That wasn't the point. BUt I'm getting the feeling if I explained it to you again, your learning disability still wouldn't process

Dumbass to officer: Officer, I have a flat and I want that homeowner arrested and charged. I want it replaced.

Officer to dumbass: It appears that you intentionally veered off the road with the intent to drive over the Trump signs.

I'm going to have to site you for:
1. reckless endangerment 3-204
2. reckless driving 21-801a
3. malicious destruction 6-301
4. malicious trespass/vandalism 6-401
5. wanton trespass 6-403
6. unlawful use of vehicle on private property 6-404
7. wanton entry 6-406
8. unlawful entry on property with the intent of invading the privacy of the property occupants 6-408

Sir. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent, blah, blah...

Officer to homeowner. Way to go. High five.
Be careful how you use nails to keep your signs from blowing away. Some dumbass might get a flat knocking your signs down. Have a good day.

Homeowner. OK officer. I'll be careful next time. Have a good day. And be safe out there.

 

[westwall]

Of course. I am very familiar with them. None of them even remotely apply to the situation in hand no matter how much you want them to be. You're simply a terrorist who is pissed off that someone was able to legally defend themselves. Your dumb fuck relative is a loser. JUST. LIKE. YOU!

Not sure how this became "My relative" (Sadly, a lot of my relatives are Trump supporters who probably won't understand why they'll lose their nice unionjobs next year if Trump is elected.)

You were defending indefensible so strenuously that I had to assume it was one of your dumb fuck relatives. So... it was YOU?

 

[Norman]

So going off the road into someone's lawn is not creating a dangerous situation? You are laughable!

Sure it is. And if someone did it and a cop saw them, they should be ticketed and fined.

That wasn't the point. BUt I'm getting the feeling if I explained it to you again, your learning disability still wouldn't process

Dumbass to officer: Officer, I have a flat and I want that homeowner arrested and charged. I want it replaced.

Officer to dumbass: It appears that you intentionally veered off the road with the intent to drive over the Trump signs.

I'm going to have to site you for:
1. reckless endangerment 3-204
2. reckless driving 21-801a
3. malicious destruction 6-301
4. malicious trespass/vandalism 6-401
5. wanton trespass 6-403
6. unlawful use of vehicle on private property 6-404
7. wanton entry 6-406
8. unlawful entry on property with the intent of invading the privacy of the property occupants 6-408

Sir. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent, blah, blah...

Officer to homeowner. Way to go. High five.
Be careful how you use nails to keep your signs from blowing away. Some dumbass might get a flat knocking your signs down. Have a good day.

Homeowner. OK officer. I'll be careful next time. Have a good day. And be safe out there.

That list of a common Hillary supporter, is much shorter than the list she will be found guilty off once the FBI is done with her.

 

[JoeB131]

Dumbass to officer: Officer, I have a flat and I want that homeowner arrested and charged. I want it replaced.

Officer to dumbass: It appears that you intentionally veered off the road with the intent to drive over the Trump signs.

Which again, wouldn't releive the person who set the trap of criminal liability if someone was injured.

Man, you Trumpkins are dumb....

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Dumbass to officer: Officer, I have a flat and I want that homeowner arrested and charged. I want it replaced.

Officer to dumbass: It appears that you intentionally veered off the road with the intent to drive over the Trump signs.

Which again, wouldn't releive the person who set the trap of criminal liability if someone was injured.

Man, you Trumpkins are dumb....

Trumpkin.

You are so, so wrong again, slick.

How many times must I tell you.

Neither candidate meets my standards and I'm not going to give either of them my approval next Tuesday.

You? Corrupt and irredeemable.

 

[westwall]

Dumbass to officer: Officer, I have a flat and I want that homeowner arrested and charged. I want it replaced.

Officer to dumbass: It appears that you intentionally veered off the road with the intent to drive over the Trump signs.

Which again, wouldn't releive the person who set the trap of criminal liability if someone was injured.

Man, you Trumpkins are dumb....

What trap? You keep claiming it was a trap when it is merely an anchor to prevent the sign from blowing away. It's not the fault of the person placing the sign that your dumb fuck relative is a violent terrorist who just happened to thankfully get caught breaking multiple laws. The only person who actually broke a law is your dumb fuck relative. I know it's hard for a moron like you to understand the basics, but thems the facts.

 

[Papageorgio]

Dumbass to officer: Officer, I have a flat and I want that homeowner arrested and charged. I want it replaced.

Officer to dumbass: It appears that you intentionally veered off the road with the intent to drive over the Trump signs.

Which again, wouldn't releive the person who set the trap of criminal liability if someone was injured.

Man, you Trumpkins are dumb....

Actually it can, because crime "b" would never have happened without crime "a".

Besides the guy got a flat tire, so there was no crime "b". Just the dumbshit who trespassed and negligence ruined private property.

 

[JoeB131]

What trap? You keep claiming it was a trap when it is merely an anchor to prevent the sign from blowing away.

An anchor needs dozens of nails in it? Pointing upwards?

Yeah, I say that if someone got killed, they should totally try that one in court.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually it can, because crime "b" would never have happened without crime "a".

Besides the guy got a flat tire, so there was no crime "b". Just the dumbshit who trespassed and negligence ruined private property.

Uh, no, it wouldn't... and I posted a bunch of precedents to the contrary.

The problem with booby traps is that they don't discriminate. They could just as easily injure kids on their bikes or a first responder rushing to an emergency and going off road.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

What trap? You keep claiming it was a trap when it is merely an anchor to prevent the sign from blowing away.

An anchor needs dozens of nails in it? Pointing upwards?

Yeah, I say that if someone got killed, they should totally try that one in court.

Damn Joe. You never give up. I gave you a list of violations committed by your "victim.'

Your disdain for the law is amusing. Why would you defend this POS?

Would it be that in your world you want lawlessness and anarchy for the sake of your view for the global initiative and one world rule, with the intent on completely silencing those who disagree with the blatant lawlessness we see daily?