G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Nice to know that you want to screw a baby who is at the most, a month or 2 old. :doh: I'm talking about the picture of the device he posted. :doh: Go for it man. But, before you do you might want to look at the device again, those kings knew what they were doing when they were protecting their bloodlines, and daughter's celebacy. That's what in Mideval days would be called a "Black and Decker pecker wrecker." Damn I completely missed the second trap. Well...there's always the ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I'm talking about the picture of the device he posted. :doh: I know what you posted. You clearly meant something completely different then what you posted. Still was a sick comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I know what you posted. You clearly meant something completely different then what you posted. Still was a sick comment. Oh, wow, that completely flew over my head :doh: :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Wow.. you are a sick **** dude. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.So, the boy deseves to never walk again? You are a real winner. Don't "mean it in the nicest possible way". Mean in the way you said it, which I would guess is the reality of the situation. If you break into my apartment, you'll be lucky to get out as a parapalegic. If you do, I'm having trouble with my aim that day. He was told not to be there. He should have been feeling lucky that her parents didn't flat our ban them from seeing each other (which is what I would have done). IF either he or his girlfriend had been the least bit intelligent this never would have happened. But they weren't. They were thinking with their hormones instead of their brains and now he's going to pay for that mistake the rest of his life. TS Elliott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Why is he being accused of a "terroristic act"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 They were thinking with their hormones instead of their brains Dude, they're TEENAGERS. Of COURSE they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 20, 2007 Author Share Posted August 20, 2007 Why is he being accused of a "terroristic act"? Because they are over using the idea of "terrorism" in order to make it a class A felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Dude, they're TEENAGERS. Of COURSE they were. "Dude", I can't speak for you but I was never at a point in my life where my hormones overwhelmed my comprehension that if I ****ed up seriously enough, I was going to have to pay a serious penalty for the mistake. As my father was fond of saying on occassion to punctuate a point... "Young man, I brought you into this world, I can damn well take you back out of it." We'd be a lot better off if more parents were considerably stricter with their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Maybe, just maybe they're wondering what might have happened if they'd decided to keep some track of where there son was going and what he was doing.... you know like a PARENT would. Mass, teenagers lie all the time to their parents. Heck, I did. And I had two very loving and caring parents that cared about me very much. It was impossible for my parents to keep track of me all the time. Most teenagers have sleepovers and sneak out of the house to go see girls and such. It is impossible for parents to know everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 The boy was 19 right? He may technically be a teen,but he put himself at risk by ignoring a clear warning. It's a tragedy all around brought on by wrong choices by at least three people involved....they all share responsibility,just as they all will suffer in some measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 If you break into my apartment, you'll be lucky to get out as a parapalegic. If you do, I'm having trouble with my aim that day. Tough guy. You are a skinny dude.. you would only have one option and that is to run for a gun. And this kid didn't break into some random dudes house. He went to his girlfriends house. AT WORST, this father should have kicked him out of the house and revoked his daughters privelage of her seeing him. It would be different if he walked in and the boy was raping his daughter. ****, as much as we know.. nothing went on in that room. Maybe some making out. The article doesn't say anything about the father being furious because the guy and girl were ****ing. The boy was in the house, without supervision for the father and/or mother. He was welcomed in by the daughter (his girlfriend). If you can't see the extreme in that.. then I seriously hope that you never have kids nor, be around any. You would be the sick dude that shoots a kid over some dumb ****. He was told not to be there. He should have been feeling lucky that her parents didn't flat our ban them from seeing each other (which is what I would have done). IF either he or his girlfriend had been the least bit intelligent this never would have happened. But they weren't. They were thinking with their hormones instead of their brains and now he's going to pay for that mistake the rest of his life. TS Elliott. So, a ban from seeing each other is equal to never walking again? How about you stick to one side for the discussion and not all over the place? You go from applauding the father for paralayzing the boy.. to saying that all he should have done was ban the boy and girl from seeing each other. Further proof that you are only posting these words to bring attention to yourself. If you really did have these views.. you would be consistent with them. :jerk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 "Dude", I can't speak for you but I was never at a point in my life where my hormones overwhelmed my comprehension that if I ****ed up seriously enough, I was going to have to pay a serious penalty for the mistake.As my father was fond of saying on occassion to punctuate a point... "Young man, I brought you into this world, I can damn well take you back out of it." We'd be a lot better off if more parents were considerably stricter with their children. The boy wanted to see his girlfriend so he deserves to never walk again? Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 The boy was 19 right?He may technically be a teen,but he put himself at risk by ignoring a clear warning. It's a tragedy all around brought on by wrong choices by at least three people involved....they all share responsibility,just as they all will suffer in some measure. At risk? Really? At risk of never seeing her again.. that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 PG , he is using info from my link where the boy was already forbidden from the house unchaperoned. I should have pasted that part,I guess. http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/52443/ According to a probablecause affidavit in the case, Guzman and the girl had been dating for the past four months. The girl had told her mother Guzman had been sneaking into the house at night. The two were allowed to continue dating, but Guzman was told not to come to the residence without being chaperoned, the affidavit states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 While I think what the father did is completely obsurd and I hope he goes to jail for a long time, the guy was 19 and with a 17 year old. Isn't that illegal in most states if not all of them? It'll be interesting to see if this plays a role in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 PG , he is using info from my link where the boy was already forbidden from the house unchaperoned.I should have pasted that part,I guess. http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/52443/ According to a probablecause affidavit in the case, Guzman and the girl had been dating for the past four months. The girl had told her mother Guzman had been sneaking into the house at night. The two were allowed to continue dating, but Guzman was told not to come to the residence without being chaperoned, the affidavit states. I read that. And I even mentioned that in one of my posts as well. While I think what the father did is completely obsurd and I hope he goes to jail for a long time, the guy was 19 and with a 17 year old. Isn't that illegal in most states if not all of them? It'll be interesting to see if this plays a role in this case. Your answer is no. Not in Arkansas Statutory Rape laws by state.. Rape is engaging in sexual intercourse with someone under age 14 who is at least three years younger.Fourth-degree sexual assault if someone age 20 or older engages in sexual intercourse with someone under age 16. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 While I think what the father did is completely obsurd and I hope he goes to jail for a long time, the guy was 19 and with a 17 year old. Isn't that illegal in most states if not all of them? It'll be interesting to see if this plays a role in this case. They have the three yr rule so it would be legal I believe,but in his house is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Tough guy. You are a skinny dude.. you would only have one option and that is to run for a gun. What's this "run for" thing you talk about? And this kid didn't break into some random dudes house. He went to his girlfriends house. AT WORST, this father should have kicked him out of the house and revoked his daughters privelage of her seeing him. It would be different if he walked in and the boy was raping his daughter. ****, as much as we know.. nothing went on in that room. Maybe some making out. The article doesn't say anything about the father being furious because the guy and girl were ****ing. The boy was in the house, without supervision for the father and/or mother. He was welcomed in by the daughter (his girlfriend). This young man went to a location he knew he was not allowed into. He purposefully and with forethought planned out how he would get to and into the house without drawing any more attention to himself than necessary. I think it's pretty obvious that he knew he wasn't supposed to be there... regardless of whether they were downstairs playing checkers or engaged in the grossest carnal delights imaginable in her bedroom. Additionally, when they became aware that the father was home, he tried to hide instead of owning up to the violation of the rules. So far as I'm concerned that's just digging the hole even deeper. If you can't see the extreme in that.. then I seriously hope that you never have kids nor, be around any. You would be the sick dude that shoots a kid over some dumb ****.I don't have kids. I don't want kids. I do my best to avoid being around children as much as is humanly possible. They're the world's most prolific venereal disease so far as I'm concerned. So, a ban from seeing each other is equal to never walking again?How about you stick to one side for the discussion and not all over the place? You go from applauding the father for paralayzing the boy.. to saying that all he should have done was ban the boy and girl from seeing each other. How about you do a little better job of reading. My comment was that when the initial problem took place several months earlier, he would have been banned from the property and from seeing her. Hell, I'd probably have taken out a restraining order against him to ensure there was a significant paper trail. Once he violated the restraining order, I'd have shot him dead without a second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 What's this "run for" thing you talk about?This young man went to a location he knew he was not allowed into. He purposefully and with forethought planned out how he would get to and into the house without drawing any more attention to himself than necessary. I think it's pretty obvious that he knew he wasn't supposed to be there... regardless of whether they were downstairs playing checkers or engaged in the grossest carnal delights imaginable in her bedroom. Additionally, when they became aware that the father was home, he tried to hide instead of owning up to the violation of the rules. So far as I'm concerned that's just digging the hole even deeper. If you can't see the extreme in that.. then I seriously hope that you never have kids nor, be around any. You would be the sick dude that shoots a kid over some dumb ****.I don't have kids. I don't want kids. I do my best to avoid being around children as much as is humanly possible. They're the world's most prolific venereal disease so far as I'm concerned. How about you do a little better job of reading. My comment was that when the initial problem took place several months earlier, he would have been banned from the property and from seeing her. Hell, I'd probably have taken out a restraining order against him to ensure there was a significant paper trail. Once he violated the restraining order, I'd have shot him dead without a second thought. Hence your age and no family. I am sorry but, with those views. It will NEVER happen. And for the run thing. you should know what I mean. if you don't... I guess that is your loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Hence your age and no family. I am sorry but, with those views. It will NEVER happen. Which is absolutely fine with me. I've discussed that any number of times around here p_g. I think you've even been involved in a number of those discussions. And for the run thing. you should know what I mean. if you don't... I guess that is your loss. Why would I need to run? As I sit here typing I'm less than ten feet from three different loaded firearms. No need to expend any excess energy by running to get to any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Which is absolutely fine with me. I've discussed that any number of times around here p_g. I think you've even been involved in a number of those discussions.Why would I need to run? As I sit here typing I'm less than ten feet from three different loaded firearms. No need to expend any excess energy by running to get to any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Why would I need to run? As I sit here typing I'm less than ten feet from three different loaded firearms. No need to expend any excess energy by running to get to any of them. MSF and future wifey: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 p_g, at least tell me who the hell that is in the photo, so I can look him up. You know what, better yet, don't; because I won't be able to see the response anyway. I should have done this an hour ago.... Buh bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 MSF and future wifey: Nah. I've never really been all that interested in rifles. They're much too impersonal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 p_g, at least tell me who the hell that is in the photo, so I can look him up. You know what, better yet, don't; because I won't be able to see the response anyway. I should have done this an hour ago....Buh bye. Finally I made his ignore list. Now, when he finally gets the boot off this site.. I will be even more happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.