Lurker > yemmy

Thats the part youre not getting. Up until the moment in the video, the man WASNT attacking him with the hammer. He used the hammer to break the glass door in order to get into the house.

Youre acting like the man was chasing Paul around the house, swinging the hammer at him. Thats not what was happening UNTIL the police arrived and you see what what was in the video.

If Paul Pelosis story is accurate, from the time between the man entering the house and the attack you see on the body cam, there was NO physical altercation.

You seem to be having a really hard time understanding that, or you are purposely being obtuse.

Thats the thing. He WASNT trying to fight off the attacker.

Read what I wrote in post 67. He was purposely staying calm as to not illicit an overreaction from his assailant. The man was there to do harm to Nancy, not him.

The information on the events of what happened that night/morning are out there. You either are purposely choosing to not believe it or flat out ignore it.

Damm, you really want to get suspended again don't you?

Or he blocked you.....

This looks like it's gonna be Yemmy's farewell topic.

Yemmy please directly explain what you think occurred instead of beating around the bush whining about a cocktail

Say what you mean.

What is a normal exchange of words when you're in your 80s and you're trying to keep someone from attacking you with a hammer in the middle of the night?

"Act casual and say nothing."

Though good on you for desperately trying to throw shade on a guy literally in the middle of being assaulted.

Because someone with a hammer told him to.

wonder who they will cast as Abbie

I want the cowards to announce themselves

It'll be about as dangerous as a cold in a few more years

If you care to answer, are you worried about getting older? Since it's not going anywhere

are all these movies a trilogy?

Its wild how quickly police can be held accountable for heinous acts once you make them black men

Still superior to the users that want coldblooded childmurderers as teachers.

Dude the fucking President was shot in the head in the 60s.

Instead more and more guns got pumped into the US and now here you are. In a topic where there's a conversation about how a door didn't stop a classroom of kids being killed.

Guns being available at a place like Sears was a failure to begin with yes and things would be even worse if that was never remedied.

It's still failing today though.

Its an unlawful search by the very premise; youre proposing that, in order to exercise one Constitutional right, people need to give up part of another. Its asinine, and its inherently unconstitutional.

The 4th amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and its absolutely unreasonable to suggest that any gun owner is subject to inspections within the confines of their own homes.

It would never stand.

Yeah it's a conundrum after giving gun nuts half a century of what they wanted. This is the result.

Think how bad it's gonna look in another 50 years unchecked?

It is not an unlawful searchbif its a codified law, and if the inspections and penalties are codified it would be a lawful seizure.

You really are absolutely nuts it this is your take away from anything said in this topic.

Fucking wow.

I'm as progun as anyone here, if not more, and I think arming teachers is stupid.

That is what security officers are for.

the only people who aren't using logic are the people who are saying that kid not having access to a gun in the first place isn't the solution, and that the solution instead is to give more people more guns

Who do you think should have guns, and who should not?

fuck off

guns are the reason that kids are in danger in school

Tags holding up

more guns is NOT A solution

Sorry, mods, I'm not going to pretend I'm sad that somebody who spread misinformation about COVID and voiced support for the 1/6 terrorists died, most likely from the same virus she insisted didn't exist.

It is when you ignore the final paragraph of the op and close your reply by saying that yes, shooting an active shooter who's 6 years old is an acceptable outcome.

I didnt get the middle school teacher position. I have a PhD in education with a 4.0 GPA, 9 years of teaching middle school, 9 recommendations and my previous students built me a shrine, and I am ok with the 7.5$ USD per hour pay, but I failed the sharpshooting test and I was told I lack fire weapon experience and hostage situation skills. Oh well Im making twice as much bartending anyway

So you dont prefer a solution that prevents the 6 year old from ever gaining access to the gun, is what you're saying.

this is the future Republican wants

shooting children.

for something he didn't do, know about, or should have known about? probably not..

if there's evidence he was involved, sure.

It's literally an entirely different situation, Trumper

This is a weird post coming from you

Ghost. If you played it recently enough that you wouldn't start over then don't put it off so you would end up having to.