- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics

Chad Wetumpka
Favorite team: | Auburn ![]() |
Location: | |
Biography: | |
Interests: | |
Occupation: | |
Number of Posts: | 10 |
Registered on: | 5/8/2020 |
Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Arbery case - Father and Son perspective
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 3:04 pm
quote:
If you thought the perp was armed and dangerous, why try to corner him at all?
Because you value your neighbors and community. A difficult thing for hyperindividualists to conceive.
re: Arbery case - Father and Son perspective
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 2:58 pm
quote:
The one thing I keep thinking about is if I was the idiot with the shotgun I would have butt stroked his arse. Absolutely no need to fire a shot and maybe you get charged with assault and battery!
And if he yanks it from you and kills you then what?
re: Arbery case - Father and Son perspective
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 2:57 pm
quote:
Who did he harm?
He tried to harm the guy with a shotgun.
re: Arbery case - Father and Son perspective
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 2:46 pm
quote:
Ok, you really need to read this and think about it. Like really study it...
Why do cops have guns, moron?
re: Arbery case - Father and Son perspective
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 2:44 pm
quote:
Start with "why pursue him" then work your way to "why pursue and confront him while armed"... If they knew him it was not like they could not have reported his presence to the police....
Why pursue him - to make sure he doesn't harm others. To let the police know his location.
Why pursue him armed? To make sure he doesn't hurt you.
Arbery case - Father and Son perspective
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 2:40 pm
Multiple vids of this "jogger" (w/ vioIent criminal & mental records) trespassing at property. He's caught again, so they pursue. He flees. Do you call the cops and hope this fugitive doesn't run into some house and grab a weapon? Or are you going to pursue w/ armed friends?
The guns were supposed to make sure things go smoothly, honestly. If he’s packing (as a known robber with criminal weapons past, very well could be), you have defense/deterrent. If he’s unarmed, no fisticuffs. You have guns, they don’t, they’ll have to listen. Unless they’re an idiot and attack anyway.
This is a point the pro-jogger people are especially struggling with.They keep saying “why would you bring a gun???” If you think about it for just 5 seconds it makes total sense.
The other explanation is guns were brought to better facilitate the murder that was intended. Except all other evidence (jogger running toward truck, cops called, not taking shot until hands are on rifle/punching in the face) seem to indicate it was in fact the above rationale. Besides the fact it’s an open carry state & they’re allowed to be armed wherever they want.
The guns were supposed to make sure things go smoothly, honestly. If he’s packing (as a known robber with criminal weapons past, very well could be), you have defense/deterrent. If he’s unarmed, no fisticuffs. You have guns, they don’t, they’ll have to listen. Unless they’re an idiot and attack anyway.
This is a point the pro-jogger people are especially struggling with.They keep saying “why would you bring a gun???” If you think about it for just 5 seconds it makes total sense.
The other explanation is guns were brought to better facilitate the murder that was intended. Except all other evidence (jogger running toward truck, cops called, not taking shot until hands are on rifle/punching in the face) seem to indicate it was in fact the above rationale. Besides the fact it’s an open carry state & they’re allowed to be armed wherever they want.
re: Has anybody seen or heard from Rod Rosenstein lately?
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 12:37 pm
He probably went back with Ghislane Maxwell
re: Odds the new stimulus package passes?
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 11:24 am
quote:
Everybody is looking for a handout.
They should be
re: Some of you need to stop with the “Blame Arbery” threads.
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 11:23 am
quote:
we only hear about ones like this to anger blacks across the USA. Why is that?
Typically the ones promoted are where the shooters are knowingly innocent too. (Wilson, Zimmerman, looks more and more like this one)
re: When Do We Protest at the Capitol?
Posted by Chad Wetumpka on 5/11/20 at 10:45 am
The problem with anti-lockdown politics is that it offers nothing once the lockdown ends, which it will be over the next several weeks. What then will be said for the millions of people without jobs? What demands will be made then? None.
The anti-lockdown protests should have been coupled with demands for mandatory rehires of those that were laid off or furloughed, and government checks for people until they return to their pre-lockdown income levels. Additionally an immigration moratorium for at least ten years.
The trouble is that the anti-lockdown protests carried with them an unspoken assumption that the status quo prior to lockdown, where people went to work and bought groceries when they chose, meant they were free of system control. The lockdown itself showed this wasn't the case.
Once the lockdown ends, which it will, where will the political energy that was mustered behind this movement go? It will disappear, and we will have a new status quo, except millions of people will be out of work, and there will be no organized advocacy for them.
The anti-lockdown protests should have been coupled with demands for mandatory rehires of those that were laid off or furloughed, and government checks for people until they return to their pre-lockdown income levels. Additionally an immigration moratorium for at least ten years.
The trouble is that the anti-lockdown protests carried with them an unspoken assumption that the status quo prior to lockdown, where people went to work and bought groceries when they chose, meant they were free of system control. The lockdown itself showed this wasn't the case.
Once the lockdown ends, which it will, where will the political energy that was mustered behind this movement go? It will disappear, and we will have a new status quo, except millions of people will be out of work, and there will be no organized advocacy for them.
Popular