It would take a lot of strength not to punch her in the face.

But it would take hardly any strength to falcon punch her. I say you do it.

No, it's not mine. haha it was on tamparacing.

...definite punch in the face, or if you can't do that...kick in the groin....

I would look her in the eye, and punch her square in the center of her fucking face.

I would like to say I could, but I doubt I would. >_>



That came to mind.

hahaha. as I was reading, I was like "wait a minute... Nismo? Ex girlfriend? those two dont add up"

sucks for that guy whoever he is.

I have plenty of ex girlfriends ass.

lol alright alright.

Ouch what did the guy do for that?

well that sucks.

The scratches don't look too bad but seeing the convertible top cut up like that makes my stomach turn.

Im with nismo, i would say i would (punch her square in the face) but given the chance, i doubt i could. Thats why i always tell my g/f's (and now my wife) that they would be sorry if they trashed my car. Its a complete lie, but keeping it up has kept a couple crazy bitches from tearing my shit up i think.

I even hate that redneck song where the bitch is smashing the guys car and cutting his seats. Everytime i hear it i play this movie reel in my head of what i would do to a person if i caught them in such an act. It never ends well.

How does one segue into having that conversation with one's wife?

EDIT: Didn't this say "that you would be [sic] them up" a few moments ago instead of "that they would be sorry"? That's what I thought I was responding to, but something else popped up when I clicked quote and reply.

I had just woken up and was going through my morning routine (pre coffee) and i just typed with my pre thought filter out. As for the segue, it was never a bold statement. It was always a reply to a smart comment during either a just for fun picking at each other session, or response to a question of what would you do if? I changed it because i never really said " i would beat the shit out of you", like i had typed, but i had certainly implied it.

All you really need to do is use the pimp hand from time to time so the bitches know where the line is.

Physical violence? Come on, guys.

You can be WAY more creative than that.

Step 1: Pressing civil charges. Mitlov, you might be able to help (I don't know my torts like I should) but could this qualify as some form of assault? Definitely tresspass to chattels, and even possibly intentional infliction of emotional distress. Anyway, get some puntitive $$$ to help pay for your Jackson S/C and full suspension as well as a new top and paintjob.

Step 2: Pressing criminal charges. Just checked up my facts, looks like >$1,000 in damages resulting from criminal mischief (read: vandalism) qualifies as a 3rd degree felony in the state of Florida, so this isn't just some misdameanor that may just go away. And I have NO doubt that there's more than $1,000 worth of damage to that S2000. That's an arrestable offense - and should make it hillarious to obtain gainful employment. If she's convicted, there goes her right to vote. Its also punishable by a $5,000 fine/5-year prision sentence (maximum).

Step 3: Laugh. I have no tolerance for people who fuck with other people's shit. You want to punch me in the balls? Fine, I'll give you a shot fair and square. But fucking with my stuff is grounds for me fucking with your life.

Conclusion: The long arm of the law is stronger than the pimp hand in this case.

It all sounds good and well, but all that hinges on some flatfoot taking fingerprints or you having some grounds for proof of who did it. Without it, a good lawyer might argue that it could only be the ex girlfriend. But, a competent attorney would argue on her behalf that senseless vandalism happens all the time. He'll cite a few cases, and then all of sudden you have reasonable doubt. Shes off the hook, your out the cash for your car and your lawyer.

Im not advocating violence, but our legal system is far from perfect. Just stay away from peoples cars. Its that simple.

And when girlfriends don't... use the pimp hand.

Yeah, that's a best case scenario. But this is a felony, so there is a chance. She'd be smart to settle anyway.

And in Texas, we pronounce the pimp hand, "Castle Doctrine."

midnightdorifto's method is for dealing with situation after it has happened. The pimp hand should be used make sure such an event never occurs in the first place.

Power to him. Nobody's ever gonna rob that neighborhood ever again. What was the outcome on the trial?

Keeping in mind that the law varies from state to state, it could be trespass to chattels or conversion, depending on how much damage was done. I doubt you'd get IIED, given the high standard for outrageous conduct (wording varies in case law of various states, but in Oregon, you need "conduct extraordinarily beyond the bounds of socially tolerable behavior," and keying a paint job or cutting up the roof of a roadster likely won't get you there. Still, it's always worth consulting with a local attorney, because torts vary A LOT from state to state.

If what you're dealing with is the cut up roof to a Miata, you should also consider small claims court, representing yourself. It will be hard to find an attorney interested in pursuing $1,000 or so in damages, and small claims is a lot simpler and quicker than mainstream civil litigation anyway. The car has got to be pretty seriously damaged before it's economically worth it to get an attorney involved.

DISCLAIMER: This is all just personal opinion related to a hypothetical. This post is not meant to give advice to anyone's specific situation, and certainly not meant to advise on state law outside of the State of Oregon.

Nice disclaimer Mit.


As far as the castle doctrine, id hate to think that a young woman could be killed for doing something like that. I am familiar with the story that was linked. I personally feel that the man should go to prison. Had the police shot and killed the same robbers in the same situation, the officers most likely would have faced charges.

Criminally: Grand Jury ruled no-bill.
Civilly: Death threats, protests, and there's probably some sort of frivolous lawsuit in the works .

The great state of Texas where you can actually defend your hard earned possessions.

Well I live in Massachusetts, where if the guy robbing your house slips, falls, and breaks his leg, you lose your life savings to him and his lawyer.

I'm with the dispatcher here. You don't kill someone because they're jogging down the street with your neighbor's laptop. You just don't do that. The fact that he deliberated with a dispatcher for five minutes, announcing that he was going to kill them, and then shouted "boom, you're dead" while he shot the running burglars proves to me that he did not think that he, himself, was in any danger. I think it's also clear from the phone call that his neighbors weren't home and he knew it--so he wasn't defending other people, either. This was vigilante murder over a property crime, not self-defense IMO, regardless of what Texas law considers it to be.

That first bit was sarcasm, but I'm with protecting my property. Look, here's how I look at it:

If someone is in my house, I'm not really in the mood to debate where the line of "backed against the wall" is in terms of legal fortitude. If they're in my house while I'm at home, their motives cease to matter. Unless it is some extenuating circumstance that has arisen out of their own personal safety (injured and broke in seeking assistance), there really isn't an excuse to break into my place.

As far as I look at it, and feel free to disagree with me (state's rights exist for this exact purpose), property isn't worth dying over, not the other way around. Instead of looking at this from a "property can be replaced" standpoint, I'd prefer to look at it from a "your life isn't worth risking for a television."

My stance is that I have insurance. There is very little lost to me to let someone walk away with my stuff. The my risk of loss of life, or even the mental stress of having killed a man, is not worth the benefit not having to deal with insurance people for a few days.

But, I will announce to said thief my not wanting him to be there and I will also let him hear the sound of an AK racking a round into the chamber. If that doesn't get him out, or if he comes after me, then he gets to find out what a few rounds of 7.62 feels like. I'm told it's not nice.

Your thoughts dont fall on deaf ears. I personally own multiple firearms. I will also only say one thing to you if i find you in my house uninvited : "Get down and stop moving" . After that you really are taking your life into your own hands. My wife and myself are both concealed carry permit holders. So theres a good chance that if you find us on the street and think that you are decidedly safer, your wrong again. what does all this mean? Im not gonna shoot someone if they make off with my tv or ipod. My life, and my wifes is the only thing im interested is defending, (obviously other family would be included if with me).

Your reasoning is decent for detering thieves, but its not worth it. Thats why we have prison. A tv shouldnt be worth 3-5 years of your life, not a dirt nap.

Texas castle doctrine is great because it gives the victim (ie home owner) the legal high ground in cases like that. Some one breaking into my house at 3 am obviously isn't a law abiding citizen. Knowing that, I don't know what he's capable of so once I tell him to get on the ground and stay still, any sudden movement to anywhere but the door is likely not going to be a favorable outcome for the intruder.

I also have a concealed weapons permit and carry (open or concealed) where ever I can, I own multiple guns but I hope the day never come where I have to use them against another person. I'd never shoot someone for stealing or vandalizing my car out of the garage unless he tried to run me down with it or pointed a gun at me in the process. Like has been said, that's what jail is for. But someone with a knife sharp enough to slice that roof like that is obviously unstable and who knows if they might turn on you if they're in that kind of rage.

Yeah, this is a critical distinction. If I awake in the middle of the night and I find an intruder headed into my kid's bedroom or our bedroom, I don't stop to inquire whether he's just looking for electronics or whether he's some psycho pervert or violent wackjob. I take him down with the amount of force I need to use to control the situation--and if he gets hurt or killed in the process, so be it. However, if I wake up in the middle of the night and I find an intruder downstairs, holding my DVD player, and headed out toward the door, I do not use lethal force. It's just not right to kill over some electronics, whether the electronics are insured or not. (Note: I might still threaten to use lethal force to detain him while the cops come, or I might use non-lethal force to detain him until the cops come. But I don't actually shoot him in the chest with a shotgun unless someone's in danger).

What this Texas guy did is the latter. I mean, he shot these two guys as they were exiting the house and fleeing down the street, after they had stolen property. I don't care if it's illegal or not. It's just plain wrong. Not all crimes deserve capital punishment.

Mitlov, I live in South Africa, more so in Johannesburg, according to many, the "Crime Capital Of The World". Isn't that a beautiful title to have for the city you love dearly. The reason I'm saying this, is because having the standpoint you have on it, comes from your personal situation IMO. What I mean is that if you live in Sweden, where there is hardly any crime, and most of it quite petty, I would imagine(just making an example here), you wouldn't take someone stealing an IPod as an incredibly terrible thing, it's just an IPod. But come from a background like I do (i.e. SA) your opinion's begin to change.

I have personally had a gun in my face, for a cell phone. My mother has has a gun in here face, in front of our house, for her car, my girlfriend's family was held up at gunpoint inside her house, numerous of my friends and their families have had guns shoved in their faces, been pistol whipped, been tiued up, in their own houses. I could honestly go on with story after story, and write essays. Everyone I know has some crime story or other.

The point I'm trying to get at, is ask any one of these people what they would do if they saw someone sneeking in their garden at night(not knowing if this person is a serial killer, someone who wants to steal your TV, or just an idiot who got lost and ended up in your garden), and most of them will tell you: "Shoot the F*cker!" And this doesn't mean everyone is a psycho killer, it just means they've had enough of crime of any sorts, and would resort to very drastic measures.

This leads me to your statement saying shooting those guys is just wrong (legal or not). Most of the above mentioned people will strongly disagree with you. As do I. If you shoot the bastard right then and there, you remove him and stop him from possibly stealing more TV's, raping, murdering, whatever it may be.

As to wether or not these people could handle the actual stress of killing a person (like Dr. Stranglove mentioned) is a completely different story. I for one really doubt that I could shoot someone in the first place, or deal properly with the mental stress and anguish it would cause me.

Sorry, long rant, but I really do feel very strongly about crime and removing criminals from society, completely.

OH, the only flaw i see with your statement, is you agree with us, you just dont realize it! If someone steals something from you, while your not around, you were robbed. If someone points a gun at your face and demands your cell phone, your life is being held hostage for a piece of shit phone. In that situation, all the rules have changed.

We come from two different places. The crime here is not so extreme, but it still does happen. Ive personally been confronted by a man with a gun as well. I just wanted to point out that the scenarios are like comparing apples to oranges. They both include robbery, but one also includes the threat of death. The man in texas was able to defend himself, he was not in harms way, and the robbers were obviously leaving the scene. No need to kill them.

I would support lethal force for self-defense in all of these situations. Read my post again. What I don't support is lethal force in a situation like my wife's old roommate. She came out of her house to see someone grab her bicycle from her driveway and flee down the street on it.

Answer one question. Don't regale me with stories about rape or murder or hostage-taking. Do you think this particular bicycle thief should have been shot and killed while he fled, for the specific crime he committed?



I understand shooting the person if you don't know what their motivation is and you suspect an intent to do violence (including doing violence in order to steal), not just steal and run. HOWEVER, that is not at all what this Texas incident was. He had five minutes to observe them, did so, debated his legal rights with a 911 dispatcher, and then shot them while they ran down a sidewalk with property.



You're putting stealing a television on the same level as rape and murder, do you realize that? I don't. I fully support the use of lethal force to prevent rape or murder. Not to prevent non-violent television theft.

I agree with this. However, the state of Alabama says I can use physical force but not deadly physical force. I think free people should be able to use whatever level of force required.




However, Alabama's Castle Doctrine reads really nice in my interpretation.
Section 13A-3-23

Ok, i probably didn't bring my point across properly. Ill try do it in a shorter manner this time.
I am by no means putting stealing a bike on the same level as rape and murder. What I meant to bring across is that when you are brought up/live in a particular set of circumstances(crime in this case) you start to think a certain way. And with a lot of people that live in very badly crime ridden areas the line between a 'soft' crime and a 'hard' crime begins to blur. You start to think of criminals as just criminals, not as seperate thieves/murderers/rapists. And at some point you start to think screw them all, no matter what they did.

Maybe it's paranoia(JoBurger's are generally very paranoid) and we're scared that the guy carrying the TV out the back door might turn around and shoot us, I don't know. I guess it also depends on the situation and your state of mind.

And just back to the YouTube video. I fully agree with that guy shooting the two robbers. It very simply boils down to the facty that if those two robbers hadn't been robbing the house, they wouldn't have gotten shot.

This has gotten too serious