Unspec7

Unspec7 t1_ject7n9 wrote

>Half this sub loves people who commit crimes/make excuses for them more and thinks hate crimes don't exist.

Is this directed at me?

>I doubt any victim is "thinking they were being clever" trying to survive. Yikes.

Doesn't really matter what the victim is thinking. They will catch charges due to disproportionate force. The law is blind, as they say. Just use normal pepper spray, there's no need to inflict permanent damage when normal pepper spray accomplishes the same thing for less risk.

2

Unspec7 t1_jecllmo wrote

I think the point of the restriction is specifically to ensure that people don't get charged with crimes in their use. By restricting it to chemicals that are more deterrent in nature, you avoid people getting creative with their sprays, such as putting dilute acids in them (for example). In a situation like someone acting threatening (such as OP faced), pepper spray would likely be found to be reasonable force, but permanently blinding someone by spraying acid into their face would not be reasonable force.

5

Unspec7 t1_jbju5zc wrote

>Lol TIL I'm a welt

I mean, when you keep insisting on using irrelevant personal attacks in a lame attempt to back up your argument, you're a welt, yes.

>law went to damaging your car

That's because you misunderstood the argument. I never made the claim about damaging MY car. I've always stated from the get-go that my reason is aesthetics. My "damaging bumpers" argument arose from when you said you can solve the uber front plate issue by requiring front plates. That is when I made the argument that you would be forcing people to drill into their bumpers, as not all cars have factory tow hook mounts. The "damage" argument was meant to apply to the population as a whole, not me personally.

I hope that clears it up for you. I'm not sure where you're getting this whole "the man can't tell me what to do" bit, so I can't really help you there. It seems like you're just trying to build me up in your mind to be an objectively bad person so you can justify your unwarranted vitriol.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbjpame wrote

Did you forget this question you posited me?

You asked me why I didn't want to run one. I told you it's primarily for aesthetics from the get go, which includes position of the plate and not having gaping holes in my bumper if I DO move the front plate to the tow hook. See how those interact?

Also, not all cars have a tow hook you welt.

I do enjoy your ad hominem attacks though, really backs up your argument.

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjiiuo wrote

>oh you're the guy who refuses to use a front plate because your car looks so cool without it,

Yep, fuck front plates. Cars in general look so much better without them, they're useless pieces of metal anyhow. Unsure how that affects the rationale of THIS discussion though, but I guess ya'll really like to resort to ad hominem attacks when you realize you're in an untenable position.

And based on your rational for robbing banks: you're not nearly as good a person as you think you are.

0

Unspec7 t1_jbjg5fq wrote

Bank robbery is not a victimless crime. First, there's the people you need to threaten with grave bodily harm to coerce them to give you the money, which can inflict emotional trauma. Second, FDIC insurance funds isn't just some monopoly money that comes out of thin air. It is effectively funded by tax payers, and so the entire nation becomes your victim.

0

Unspec7 t1_jbhmt1h wrote

C) Sure, but the chances of that are so low that I'd rather just pay my insurance premiums than get front plates. D) Which is illegal. Are you just contradicting yourself at this point? What stops them from running both plates and having covers on BOTH, you donut?

True, I guess a GED kind of counts as a "degree". It does, after all, get referred to as the "Good Enough Degree".

1

Unspec7 t1_jbhjuy0 wrote

>I encourage you to reread my comments so you can fully understand the words I'm saying in their entirety.

"I have no idea how to come up with a proper response and had my ass handed to me in the logic department so will just regurgitate the same shit over and over again". Nice. You haven't addressed ANY of my points about your "facts", so... yea you're just arguing in bad faith at this point.

Don't worry, I actually PrEpARE and have a front and rear facing dash cam. Wow, it's like we have technology.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbh7ty0 wrote

>You seem to be under the impression that I said fear of being caught is the only reason
>
>Considering that 5 of the states you listed also have the highest occurrence of hit and runs I'd hypothesize that not having a front plate could potentially embolden people to comit hit and runs.

This necessarily implied that the main reason people don't commit hit and runs is because they fear being caught. You're the one who used the term embolden. Further, I never said ONLY. You're the one who seems to be reading "only" from "main".

Let's be realistic now. We both understand that most people won't suddenly feel more inclined to commit a hit and run simply because front plates aren't required anymore. I get that you're trying to obfuscate how people actually behave so you can support your argument, but we both understand that people aren't primarily motivated by the legality of crimes when they consider committing a crime. In fact, when there is a hit and run, I doubt there's any consideration of the legality of running away. Most people are decent people and understand that they should stay because it's the morally right thing to do.

>logical statements I'm making.

What logical statements? You threw out some random statistics that have no correlation to each other. They weren't even correct stats - for example, the top 5 states in hit and runs is Wyoming, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, and Virginia. In that list of 5, only 1 is a no front plate state (Michigan). Even in the top 10, only 4 of the 10 are no front plate states (Michigan, Ohio, Kansas, West Virginia)

Quit clutching at your pearls, front plates don't do jack shit.

2