Upload
Login or register

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#604
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 78895 total,  96886 ,  17991
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 84.6% (846/1000)
Level 367 Comments: FJ Noble → Level 368 Comments: FJ Noble
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10927
Total Comments Made:20813
FJ Points:40049

latest user's comments

#17 - So....is she moaning, or is he?  [+] (1 new reply) 06/19/2016 on Stung +11
User avatar
#22 - friedepidermis (06/19/2016) [-]
Yes
#256 - It's very good then that I described how hard it was to hit a … 06/19/2016 on She got a point +1
#248 - Don't be an idiot, you knew full well what I meant. B…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/19/2016 on She got a point +3
#268 - anon (06/19/2016) [-]
you were describing a horrific robbery with murder and/or rape and now you have backed down to a generic "threat" soooo no i dont know what you meant, and i dont think you do either.

User avatar
#275 - captainfuckitall (06/19/2016) [-]
Fine then, since you insist I will spell it out for you super carefully.

Now, the example I used? Not important, zilch, nada, it was only there to describe how I imagined it whenever someone used the argument of how morality should be enough to protect you. Now, at the very bottom, this is the important stuff, right here, that what protects you from harm is strength and power, boom, there, that's it, that's true, that's what I was saying. It is strength, skill, generally the 'ability' to repel your attacker, whatever that attack may be and the corresponding defense with it; fists with a mugging or a rocket launcher in a full scale military battle. It is not being nice that keeps you safe, but the ability to maim or destroy whatever threatens you, with the level of defense required rising in corresponding to the level of threat.

That's it, that's all, that was the important shit, that's the stuff you should have focused on, not the example, as that's all it was, just an example.

If you HONESTLY didn't understand that, and thought I ONLY referred to 'threats' as life threatening and traumatizing situations for the whole family, you really must be quite stupid. I assumed you understood full well that it was my argument of general protection being needed against general threats, rather than goodness; but you proved me quite wrong on that. Sorry for your sake.
#246 - That doesn't mean she was in the wrong, it just means those co… 06/19/2016 on She got a point +1
#6 - Mhmm, where would we go to be pieces of **** without Funnyjunk around? 06/19/2016 on Korea reaffirms Kimmy is... 0
#14 - "Free my homies!" "What are they in for?&qu… 06/19/2016 on those all my boi 0
#23 - I like that.  [+] (1 new reply) 06/19/2016 on Never change Japan +1
User avatar
#24 - NinjaHermit (06/19/2016) [-]
It's a line from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
#170 - "Her life wasn't actually in danger", yeah, because … 06/19/2016 on She got a point +1
#167 - Most people on here have never likely shot a gun and despise v…  [+] (11 new replies) 06/19/2016 on She got a point +9
User avatar
#224 - peanutoranges (06/19/2016) [-]
But he's not particularly wrong. Killing someone in this context would be manslaughter in either the US, Canada, or UK; and she would get jail time if she were caught.

I'm all for punishing criminals, but encouraging more destructive actions and worse offences in order to stop a petty thief is pretty unreasonable.
User avatar
#261 - useroftheLOLZ (06/19/2016) [-]
Congratulations for being retarded.

First of all, there really isn't a single state in the US that denies self defense with the usage of firearms so long as you have the legal right to, either through something like Castle Doctrine or other laws of the same nature.

Second, nobody forces you to steal from someone else. You're desperate? Get a fucking job. If it's fucking flipping burgers it's fucking flipping burgers. Don't want to because you're a disgusting piece of trash and want the easy way? Good for you, don't be surprised when someone perforates you with .75 cents of lead for taking away their work, time, and threatening their life.

Don't want to be killed?

Don't commit a crime.

Simple as that.
#307 - anon (06/19/2016) [-]
how fucking retarded do you have to be to think to justify killing someone who is causing no threat
#386 - anon (06/19/2016) [-]
Yep being robbed is absolutely no threat to me. If someone breaks into my house I better just let them take what they want and let them go, wouldn't want to disturb anyone causing no threat to me.
User avatar
#298 - peanutoranges (06/19/2016) [-]
Still, playground logic such as that is retarded and does not pass for law.

If you break the law, you can be punished. If you murder someone out of self defense in the situation presented above, it is manslaughter. Manslaughter is a crime.

Continue at your own pace, but keep in mind that people aren't allowed to break laws just because others do.
#314 - anon (06/19/2016) [-]
Saying "murder someone out of self defense" is an oxymoron, you cannot murder someone without malice. It's also not manslaughter if you are in fear of your life. Manslaughter is when you cause the death of someone else due to your own negligence. If you put someone under the impression that you will hurt them they are legally cleared to defend themselves with as much force as necessary to make you stop. If that's a bullet to the brain, then so be it.
User avatar
#303 - useroftheLOLZ (06/19/2016) [-]
Yep, total playground logic.

"Your honor, the state of *whatever* recognizes that lethal force can be used in the case where one fears for their health and wellbeing if they believe it is imminent danger. My client was being mugged and given how these cases typically rule out and how she was female, she had every reason to believe that her life, if not more, would have been in danger."

This isn't breaking the law, it's self defense.

Enjoy your dindomuffins and general innability to understand law as well as fear of having to stand upon your own and take charge of your own well being.
User avatar
#311 - peanutoranges (06/19/2016) [-]
Your lack of understanding of the law is appalling.

You've already shown that you have no idea what you are talking about by implying that she can't be held accountable for her actions because it was in self defense.

Do yourself a favor, and at least look into what you're talking about before you go spouting nonsense and assumptions. You might even save yourself some jail time one day if you actually understand the law.
#362 - anon (06/19/2016) [-]
And the award for "Edgiest Teen Alive" goes to...

Nobody is going to give you a free pass to rob others, so you may as well get a job.
#320 - rfcoke (06/19/2016) [-]
Unless you are from a country with barebones laws regarding self defense and the defense or others, it seems that you are in fact the one with no law knowledge. In the United States about 22 or 23 states have the Stand Your Ground law, allowing you to use Deadly Force without being held from retreating. If you are in these states, and you feel that you are in danger of fatal or great bodily harm, you are authorized to use lethal force. and are IMMUNE from prosecution because of it. So please, try to educate yourself first before you attempt to come after others.
User avatar
#246 - captainfuckitall (06/19/2016) [-]
That doesn't mean she was in the wrong, it just means those countries have shitty laws.
#166 - As GIJorge said, there's no such thing as a 'non-lethal' area.…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/19/2016 on She got a point +2
User avatar
#180 - yuichka (06/19/2016) [-]
>>#75, also whos talking about a moving target? he is point blank
it takes even less skill to shoot someone in the cetre off the mass than the head, so obviously shooting the head is over the top.

It's very funny to me you're trying to argue about it MAY still kill them, when the other option is instantly kill them. It is pretty stupid, because while it MAY kill them, it has a great chance the person will survive.

But hey, where you live guys you have fucked up justice system so what do i know
Just shoot the person dead for such minor crime eh
JUSTICE
User avatar
#256 - captainfuckitall (06/19/2016) [-]
It's very good then that I described how hard it was to hit a target even WHEN they are close, eh? You generally move faster than someone else can aim carefully.

The video is fake anyways, we're arguing the principle of matter itself.

My priority isn't the survival of the criminal, you see.

So what type of crime must they commit before we agree we're better off without them? Killing someone?