The Brady Campaign gets their hands slapped - a victim's family gets punched in the face

[pablo_marmol]

I wonder if The Brady Bunch is going to pitch in if this victim's family actually has to pay $280,000 in court costs?



http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/aurora-theater-victims-family-may-owe-280000-in-lucky-gunner-lawsuit/

[GGJohn]

1. My deepest condolences to the family for the loss of their daughter,

but I firmly place the blame for their financial troubles at the feet of the Brady Bunch and the blood sucking lawyers who damn well knew the chances of prevailing in court were slim to none and slim had already left the station.
I wonder if the Brady Bunch will step up and offer to pay their expenses?
Somehow, I doubt it.

[pablo_marmol]

2. It's quite clear that The Brady Bunch is morally bankrupt.

Let's hope that the victim's family doesn't end up financially bankrupt. If, after paying a couple of salaries, I'd be quite surprised if TBB is even worth a quarter of a million bucks. Which is why, I'm guessing, that they gamble with other folks' money.

[GGJohn]

3. The family should sue the Brady Bunch for lying to them about the chances of winning

the lawsuit.

[pablo_marmol]

6. This could get very, *very* interesting.

Turns out that the parents got involved with TBB shortly after they lost their daughter:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2015/04/well-this-sheds-new-light-on-things.html

Do we have direct knowledge that The Bunch lied to them about their chances of winning? I haven't encountered any info. one way or other on this aspect of the case. What we do know is that TBB exploited a grieving couple.

Edited to add: Found out only recently that the theater of choice for our killer was the only one in the vicinity that was a "No Gun Zone". I always thought that Holmes was pretty dumb to pull this stunt in CO ---- now, not so much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Didn't a legal defense organization foot the costs for Otis McDonald?

[pablo_marmol]

5. I believe, though am not *certain*, that you are correct. NT

[pablo_marmol]

7. So our team is spinning this story. Color me shocked!

Attempts at backdoor gun control come at a price.......as they should! Let's just keep reminding the public over and over how fookin' dishonest we are w/regard to the gun violence issue. Hey, it's a sure political winner, right?

So the parents' attorneys weren't aware at how much the city of Chicago has doled out in compensatory legal fees? The stupid.....it TRULY burns.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/news-gods-are-testing-your-outrage-tolerance-449081411877

[pablo_marmol]

8. So thanks to 'Lurks Often' I discovered that Harry Reid is a Right Wing extremist!

After all, he strongly opposes dishonest nuisance lawsuits aimed at the firearms industry! Let the pearl-clutching commence! (Scroll roughly 3/4 down the page)

http://www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/sportsmen/rights

[jimmy the one]

9. stinking right wing judge

Pablo: Do we have direct knowledge that The Bunch lied to them about their chances of winning? I haven't encountered any info. one way or other on this aspect of the case. What we do know is that TBB exploited a grieving couple.

Why don't you post more info about the case? rather than just demonize anyone supporting gun control efforts, in your sickening manner?

sept 2014: DENVER - The parents of Jessica Ghawi, one of the victims killed in the Aurora movie theater shooting, are suing the online business that sold ammunition used in the shooting. Her parents filed suit against BulkAmmo.. Ghawi's parents, appeared with attorneys and representatives of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to announce the lawsuit against Lucky Gunner and other businesses. Doing business as BulkAmmo. com, that business {lucky gunner} sold the shooting defendant 4,325 rounds for various weapons less than a month before the shooting, according to an ATF special agent's testimony during the preliminary hearing in the criminal case http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/parents-of-jessica-ghawi-involved-in-brady-center-lawsuit-against-online-ammunition-seller

Ghawi's parents are not seeking monetary damages, but do want to spare other families from similar tragedies by getting a court to order the companies to follow "reasonable business practices." .. lawsuit accuses the four online suppliers of ammunition and military-grade equipment of failing to screen the gunman and making it too easy for him to buy ammunition, tear gas and body armor.

Pablo's link: At the end of March {2015}, District Judge Richard Matsch dismissed the lawsuit brought by the Brady Center on behalf of Lonnie and Sandy Phillips who had lost a daughter in the Aurora theater shootings. Judge Matsch also awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants in the case including Lucky Gunner and Sportsman's Guide.. the fees being requested totaled approx $224,000.

It sure does help if the district court judge who hears the case is a far rightwing gunnut, Nixon appointee, presumably republican (quelle surprise): Federal judge allows citizens to challenge post office gun ban.. It seems the Postal Service has precedent on its side, though Judge Richard Matsch wants to hear arguments. A couple in Colorado is challenging post offices' status as "sensitive places," stating that the gun ban on Postal Service property makes it impossible for them to retrieve their mail. The couple lives far from town and does not receive home delivery. Both are concealed-carry permit holders. The Postal Service attempted to have the suit dismissed, as the Supreme Court has ruled that restricting the right to have firearms is not violated in "sensitive places." Judge Matsch's refusal for dismissal means that both sides of the case will prepare arguments to be heard at a later date. http://ballotpedia.org/Federal_judge_allows_citizens_to_challenge_post_office_gun_ban

Pablo: Edited to add: Found out only recently that the theater of choice for our killer was the only one in the vicinity that was a "No Gun Zone". I always thought that Holmes was pretty dumb to pull this stunt in CO ---- now, not so much.

Sick. Pablo now thinks holmes not so dumb to kill 12 in a no gun zone in colorado. Sick, Pablo, sick.
Who's exploiting who? the parents of the dead child who sought no monetary rewards? or the stinking right wing gunnut judge who orders them to pay a quarter million dollars?

[blueridge3210]

10. How sad

that the "stinking rightwing gunnut juge" followed the law as written. Regardless of whether the plaintiffs sought monetary damages; these types of lawsuits have been used in the past as a form of "lawfare" to drive up the cost of doing business and force companies to cease operations

The PLCAA was enacted to prevent lawsuits against businesses solely because their products may have been used at a later date to commit a crime. It provided for the awarding of attorney's fees to the businesses that complied with the law as they were unable to predict that any item sold might be used in a criminal manner.

On-line retailers sell items in bulk quite often. My BIL shoots competitively (trap/sporting clays); he and his buddies take turns ordering shotgun shells by the pallet to bring the cost down. The fact that an individual orders a quantity of ammunition on line is no predictor of criminal intent.

[beevul]

11. "body armor."

Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it.

No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. "No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting."

I see young James is keeping to his usual standard of factual accuracy...

[hack89]

12. How can online retailers "screen" purchasers of legal products?

even if they wanted to, what resources were available for them to determine that they should not have sold to Holmes?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "...far rightwing gunnut, Nixon appointee..."

If memory serves Nixon was in favor of gun control, including a ban on handguns.

[jimmy the one]

16. body armor or plastic vests

beevul: Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it. No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting.
friendly_iconoclast "No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting."

Maybe you play some trick here - I just rely on today's googling, here is what I found: He was very relaxed,” said Aurora Police Officer.., who along with other officers found Holmes in the parking lot of the theater wearing two ammunition magazines and body armor. “
2 Ace of Spades links to a .pdf of the receipt for Holmes’ “bulletproof vest” which shows that it was actually a “tactical” vest of the type used by paintballers, mall ninjas..
3 7/2012: Holmes is suspected of shooting 70 people in a sold-out movie theater. Police say he decked himself out in full-body armor for the attack and dyed his hair red http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1

So what the two above might be getting at, along with some 'gunny' websites, is that holmes was not using heavy body armor, but some light vest protection, which was transmogrified by police into being body armor; I personally dunno, havent' been following holmes much.
A recent report, last month: May 2015: 4. Body armor and tear gas grenades .. he allegedly began buying body armor and other equipment that would eventually be used during the movie theater attack, according to several witnesses. The witnesses laid out a timeline: June 30, 2012: Holmes paid $858.00 for ballistic chaps (to wear around legs), testified the owner of a body-armor resale company, Blue Defense.
July 2, 2012: Holmes placed an order with Bullet Proof Body Armor HQ .. Holmes spent 903.67 on body armor: a bulletproof torso and neck protector, bulletproof arm protection and two different bulletproof groin protectors..the items arrived at Holmes' Aurora apartment on July 17, 2012. Two days later, on the night of July 19, prosecutors say Holmes gathered all of these items and drove to the Century 16 Theater. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/james-holmes-trial-aurora-colorado-movie-theater-shooting/

I await your rebuttal & counter argument, to wit actually. But if holmes purchased over $900 worth of body armor, whether he wore it or not during his assault on the movie theater, it's suggestive enough evidence that he was up to little good.

Nuclear Unicorn "...far rightwing gunnut, Nixon appointee..." If memory serves Nixon was in favor of gun control, including a ban on handguns.

So? Nixon was indeed republican when republicans were 'cool', but Nixon republican appointees more likely to morph into gunnuts over the past 40 years, which apparently is what happened.

[beevul]

17. Too cute by half.

I await your rebuttal & counter argument, to wit actually. But if holmes purchased over $900 worth of body armor, whether he wore it or not during his assault on the movie theater, it's suggestive enough evidence that he was up to little good.

The way you're using the reply system again I mean. Too cute by half.

Local Company Sold James Holmes His Assault Vest; Receiving Threats


By Jessica Lussenhop Tue., Jul. 24 2012 at 9:07 AM

After James Holmes allegedly murdered 12 people in an Aurora movie theater, it didn't take long for authorities to trace his arsenal back to the original sellers. That included items purchased online from Chesterfield-based Tactical Gear.

The company's owners have been criticized for selling Holmes a "Blackhawk urban assault vest," two magazine pouches, and a "Be-Wharned" silver tactical knife for $306.79, and shipping it 2nd Day Air to him early this month.

Now, the company has released a statement saying their employees are being threatened.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/07/james_holes_tactical_gear_assault_vest_threats.php

Heres a picture of the vest in question:



Can I get a show of hands of those who think this is "body armor" or "protective" in that sense?

Heres a link to the manufacturers web site which gives a very detailed description of the vest. Nowhere does it claim to be or to work as "body armor"

http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest?utm_source=gs&utm_medium=sce&gclid=CLnxhfu5rbECFYeo4AodBF0AWA

Maybe you play some trick here - I just rely on today's googling, here is what I found

Yes, and you're doing every bit as good of job at it, as you do when you misuse the reply system.

[jimmy the one]

18. hope you have something else

beevul: Heres a link to the manufacturers web site which gives a very detailed description of the vest. Nowhere does it claim to be or to work as "body armor" >>> tacticalgear. com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest? Our Price: $107.99

that's your 'proof'? one link to a modern day bandolier vest? do the purchases from tactical gear comprise the entire gamut of 'body armor' purchased by holmes?

Jul. 24 2012 .. items purchased online from Chesterfield-based Tactical Gear... The company's owners have been criticized for selling Holmes a "Blackhawk urban assault vest," two magazine pouches, and a "Be-Wharned" silver tactical knife for $306.79, and shipping it 2nd Day Air to him early this month ..Adjustable flap magazine pouches for tall or short magazines Shoulder D-rings for accessory attachmentRadio pouch with cover flap and wire routingFour M-16/M4 pouches hold eight magazines

Those listed which Brady & parents filed suit against: Her parents filed suit against BulkAmmo. com, BTP Arms, sportsmansguide. com and BulletProofBodyArmorHQ. com..

beevul, do you see 'tactical gear dot com' in the list of sueees? Seems to me bulletproofbodyarmorHQ and Tacticalgear & blue defense, are separate dot coms:

http://www.bulletproofbodyarmorhq.com/concealable-bullet-proof-vests-c-10/

http://tacticalgear.com/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=tg.s&utm_term=www%20tacticalgear%20com

http://www.bluedefense.com/

Do you have anything else beevul? some smoking trick gun or something? I hope so, or else I'm gonna rest my case.

link prev post: June 30, 2012: Holmes paid $858.00 for ballistic chaps (to wear around legs), testified the owner of a body-armor resale company, Blue Defense. >>> evidently not sued
July 2, 2012: Holmes placed an order with Bullet Proof Body Armor HQ .. Holmes spent 903.67 on body armor: a bulletproof torso and neck protector, bulletproof arm protection and two different bulletproof groin protectors..the items arrived at Holmes' Aurora apartment on July 17, 2012. Two days later, on the night of July 19, prosecutors say Holmes gathered all of these items and drove to the Century 16 Theater

[beevul]

19. Since my last post directed at your deliberately misdirected "reply"...

I have been digging through older posts looking for images of holmes directly after arrest, where it was SHOWN what he was wearing. We had many many long long threads discussing this, around the time it happened. I do not recall seeing him wearing those other things listed by CNN, in any of the arrest photos I saw. We DID however see him wearing the vest I cited.

But hey, if he bought them and didn't use them, or was found to be wearing them under his clothing, so be it.

Not that he needed them anyway.


There was nobody armed in the theater to shoot back at him.

[jimmy the one]

20. many many long long ago's

beevul: I do not recall seeing him wearing those other things listed by CNN, in any of the arrest photos I saw. We DID however see him wearing the vest I cited.
But hey, if he bought them and didn't use them, or was found to be wearing them under his clothing, so be it.
Not that he needed them anyway. There was nobody armed in the theater to shoot back at him.

.. you obviously back track from your previous post where you once again slurred my credibility, while making a faulty & suspect claim of your own.

beevul's previous post: Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it. No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting

Duh, now the mighty back tracking beevul is saying if holmes had had any body armor or bought any he didn't need, 'so be it'. Essentially reversing his previous contention & slur as to my credibility. Similar with his bill of rights faux pas, by clamming up.

indignant beevul: .. No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting..

backtracking beevul, explaining body armor: I have been digging through older posts looking for images of holmes directly after arrest, where it was SHOWN what he was wearing. We had many many long long threads discussing this, around the time it happened. I do not recall seeing him wearing those other things listed by CNN, in any of the arrest photos I saw. We DID however see him wearing the vest I cited.
But hey, if he bought them and didn't use them, or was found to be wearing them under his clothing, so be it.
Not that he needed them anyway. There was nobody armed in the theater to shoot back at him.

Beevul provides ample anecdotal evidence from himself, as well as hearsay evidence, claiming 'many many long long threads discussing this..' , then wanders off into self righteous indignation where he self absolves himself of any uncivil conduct.
But beevul provides nothing substantive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. To paraphrase the late Sir John Gielgud:

One rarely sees rhetorical skills of this level displayed by someone not named
Palin, Nugent, or Duggar. I stand in awe...

[beevul]

24. Now thats some spin right there.

.. you obviously back track from your previous post where you once again slurred my credibility, while making a faulty & suspect claim of your own.

I can not slur what you do not have.

Duh, now the mighty back tracking beevul is saying if holmes had had any body armor or bought any he didn't need, 'so be it'. Essentially reversing his previous contention & slur as to my credibility. Similar with his bill of rights faux pas, by clamming up.

First, again, I can not slur what you do not have. Would you better understand it if it was in all caps or do I need to stash it in a reply to someone else?

Second, the " bill of rights faux pas" you refer to, you cite cites that essentially agree with me. Why should I interrupt you making a fool of yourself when it comes to that, rather than let it stand without my own comment?

You're channeling wimp lo again.

Please, continue.

Beevul provides ample anecdotal evidence from himself, as well as hearsay evidence, claiming 'many many long long threads discussing this..' , then wanders off into self righteous indignation where he self absolves himself of any uncivil conduct.

Get back to me about "civil conduct" after you learn the hows and whys of the reply system, and are willing and able to use them the way every single other poster on DU does.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. What a waste of time.

The police listed the stuff he had on a long time ago. Ballistic Nylon is not armor.

In any case, it's a waste of time because nobody tried to shoot him anyway. So it's not like the hypothetical armor did him any good.

*i* have armor. The real deal. So what. It's only prohibited/controlled for felons.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. He had a throat, and groin protectors, and some sort of armored leggings. That's it.

From the venerable Wikipedia:

allegedly then went to his car, which was parked near the exit door, changed into protective clothing, and retrieved his guns.[8][9] About 30 minutes into the film, police say, around 12:30 am,[10] he reentered the theater through the exit door. He was dressed in black and wore a gas mask, a load-bearing vest (not to be confused with a bulletproof vest), a ballistic helmet, bullet-resistant leggings, a bullet-resistant throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves.[11] Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening. Some believed he was playing a prank,[12] while others thought he was part of a special effects installation setup for the film's premiere or a publicity stunt by the studio or theater management.[13]

So, some degree of protection for throat, nuts, and legs. That's it. Nothing for his torso, and nothing bullet resistant for his head. Not exactly festooned in body armor, but probably looked intimidating.

[jimmy the one]

32. thanks for the support

ath crusader: So, some degree of protection for throat, nuts, and legs. That's it. Nothing for his torso, and nothing bullet resistant for his head. Not exactly festooned in body armor, but probably looked intimidating.

Thanks for helping me shoot down the two charlatans:

beevul: Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it. No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting.
friendly_iconoclast "No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting."

And what is it with beevul's new misconception, that *I" was some instigator of using all caps (all capitals) in a post, when I was simply copying what icon had written, which was in all capital letters?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=167409

[beevul]

33. It was worn, but it certainly wasn't used to any effect.

Not unless someone shot him while he was wearing it.

[jimmy the one]

34. beevul refutes himself

beevul, couple days ago: No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting.

beevul today: It was worn, but it certainly wasn't used to any effect. Not unless someone shot him while he was wearing it

Beevul evidently doesn't understand how he contradicts himself. Beevul has REFUTED his own contention. He has shown himself to be in error, to be wrong, to be a LIAR. Beevul's contention was that no body armor was used by holmes, not that the body armor itself had stopped a bullet or helped him escape injury (which it indeed might have). The original suit was for supplying holmes with body armor, & beevul has previously stated arguing whether body armor was involved.
Now beevul tries to tapdance out thru an escape hatch.

beevul: Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it.

Spoken by the very one who exposed his own credibility as being a JOKE.

beevul: I have been digging through older posts looking for images of holmes directly after arrest, where it was SHOWN what he was wearing. We had many many long long threads discussing this, around the time it happened. I do not recall seeing him wearing those other things listed by CNN, in any of the arrest photos I saw. We DID however see him wearing the vest I cited.

beevul hoisted on another of his own petards.

[beevul]

35. Did you use your shoes to write that post?

Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2015, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Or your shorts? Or your shirt?

How about your watch.

No? But you are (presumably) WEARING THEM.

Beevul's contention was that no body armor was used by holmes, not that the body armor itself had stopped a bullet or helped him escape injury (which it indeed might have).

No james. beevuls contention, is that unless he was shot while wearing it, whatever body armor he may have been wearing was not in fact USED, in spite of being worn.

If holmes was wearing a watch, did he USE it during the shooting, if he did not stop to check the time?

I say no.

I say the same thing about the body armor. He had it in his possession, but it was not "used".

Full Definition of USED


1

: employed in accomplishing something

The clear purpose of body armor, is to mitigate gun fire. Presumably he chose them for the purpose of mitigating gun fire. He never accomplished that, because he was not actually shot at and hit. Therefore the body armor was never used, in spite of being worn, any more than his watch was if he did not check the time during the shooting.

The body armor was never employed, in spite of being worn.

You may as well make the argument he used the lint in his pocket too.


On edit: I (maybe wrongly) presume you know that wearing say, a watch, and USING a watch, are not the same, and that you can tell the difference between the two.

[jimmy the one]

36. difficult extraction procedure

observe beevul go from the nutty to utter deceit: No james. beevuls contention, is that unless he {holmes} was shot while wearing it, whatever body armor he may have been wearing was not in fact USED, in spite of being worn... I say the same thing about the body armor. He had it in his possession, but it was not "used".

Do you expect educated readers to believe your BS? The original lawsuit issue did not even involve whether holmes was 'shot' while wearing body armor, but whether he had been able to purchase $900 of body armor so readily.

I prev posted: .. lawsuit accuses the four online suppliers {litigants} of ammunition and military-grade equipment of failing to screen the gunman and making it too easy for him to buy ammunition, tear gas and body armor. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168631#post9

That was the only mention I'd made to 'body armor' prior to beevul's ad hominem attack. Beevul then replied in post 11, to my above post 9, in entirety: "body armor." Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it. No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting. same link as above http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168631#post11

I had not had said, posted, nor even implied that body armor was 'used' as in stopping a bullet etc, just that the parents sued because holmes had been able to BUY body armor so readily. It appears that holmes did indeed 'use' by wearing, at least some of the body armor he had purchased, during his theatre attack.
Beevul blundered his way into another gaffe & tries to wiggle out of it by specious manipulation of synonyms & dazzling double double talk talk.
The author determines, within reason, how a synonymous word is to be used, but with his contradictions of what he originally wrote, it is not within reason to believe beevul is telling the truth but rather fabricating an after the fact alibi.
Any unbiased reader can see beevul is lying, fabricating & manipulating, to extricate his head from his -------.

[beevul]

38. I can imagine.

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Cranial-rectal-inversion is problematic among anti-gunners.

Do you expect educated readers to believe your BS? The original lawsuit issue did not even involve whether holmes was 'shot' while wearing body armor, but whether he had been able to purchase $900 of body armor so readily.

As another 'James' sang, "So fucking what".

That was the only mention I'd made to 'body armor' prior to beevul's ad hominem attack. Beevul then replied in post 11, to my above post 9, in entirety: "body armor." Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it. No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting. same link as above

Its not an ad hominem, James, its the truth. You have no credibility.

I had not had said, posted, nor even implied that body armor was 'used' as in stopping a bullet etc, just that the parents sued because holmes had been able to BUY body armor so readily. It appears that holmes did indeed 'use' by wearing, at least some of the body armor he had purchased, during his theatre attack.

Ahh equivocation. iverglas would be blushingly proud.

Beevul blundered his way into another gaffe & tries to wiggle out of it by specious manipulation of synonyms & dazzling double double talk talk.

Says the guy with credibility levels that could accurately be quantified in the negatives.

The author determines, within reason, how a synonymous word is to be used, but with his contradictions of what he originally wrote, it is not within reason to believe beevul is telling the truth but rather fabricating an after the fact alibi.
Any unbiased reader can see beevul is lying, fabricating & manipulating, to extricate his head from his -------.

You lot are so cute when you're grumpy from being prevented from attributing whatever meaning is convenient, to the words sentences and sentiments of others.

It speaks to your (lack of) credibility.

On edit:

Do you expect educated readers to believe your BS?

I expect educated readers can check the dictionary for the definition of the word "use". You apparently can not.

[jimmy the one]

42. use your head for a change

beevul: I expect educated readers can check the dictionary for the definition of the word "use". You apparently can not.

I don't need to look up the definition of 'use', whiznut. But I post it here for your edification:

amer heritage, USE 1. To put into service or employ for a purpose:
The act of using something; the application or employment of something for a purpose:
A purpose for which something is used: a tool with several uses;

He used body armor for the purpose of protecting his body from possible reaction to his shooting, by wearing it.
You as author can define, within reason, how you meant 'use' to be applied, but since you've contradicted yourself so often your current manipulation is not within reason.

beevul, couple days ago: But hey, if he bought them and didn't use them, or was found to be wearing them under his clothing, so be it.

You conditioned your reply as holmes either not using body armor, or wearing body armor.
By 'not' using body armor you meant that he didn't wear body armor, that's the only logical inference from your contradiction of yourself above.
YOU defined how 'use' was to be interpreted, by saying body armor was either being worn, or not being worn. That is how your usage of 'use' must be interpreted.
So stop playing silly semantic word games that you meant 'use' to mean his body armor actually being shot at, not too many readers are buying it.

beevul contradicting his current contention, couple days ago: I have been digging through older posts looking for images of holmes directly after arrest, where it was SHOWN what he was wearing. We had many many long long threads discussing this, around the time it happened. I do not recall seeing him wearing those other things listed by CNN, in any of the arrest photos I saw. We DID however see him wearing the vest I cited.
But hey, if he bought them and didn't use them, or was found to be wearing them under his clothing, so be it.

Everyone knew what you meant, quit tapdancing.

[beevul]

43. Stop trying to use it for me.

You conditioned your reply as holmes either not using body armor, or wearing body armor.
By 'not' using body armor you meant that he didn't wear body armor, that's the only logical inference from your contradiction of yourself above.

That's your interpretation. Its not my fault if you're getting it wrong.

You are not a mind reader.

I have been digging through older posts looking for images of holmes directly after arrest, where it was SHOWN what he was wearing. We had many many long long threads discussing this, around the time it happened. I do not recall seeing him wearing those other things listed by CNN, in any of the arrest photos I saw. We DID however see him wearing the vest I cited.

He'd HAVE to wear it, in order for it to be in a place where it could be used. Its a prerequisite.

However, just because the prerequisite has been met, still does not mean it was used.

Everyone knew what you meant, quit tapdancing.

Everyones a mind reader now?


You once accused me of being arrogant, and yet here you are, like so many others, demonstrating presumptuous arrogance of presuming ou know whats in my mind.

It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

[jimmy the one]

37. what's in a name?

I just realized something amiss I think, in that it appears icon (friendly iconoclast) might've been confusing what beevul had written & attributed it to myself.
Here is beevul's post 11, in exact spacing as it appears, followed by icon's reply:

1) beevul first replied to jimmy the one - title: 11. "body armor."

Had you any credibility, citing a claim of "body armor" would have destroyed it.

No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting.
Note: no quotes before or after last full sentence.

2) Icon then replied to beevul's post 11 (actual spacing, note quote marks) - title: 13. "No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting."

I see young James is keeping to his usual standard of factual accuracy...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168631#post11

Note how icon put in quotation marks "No "body armor" was actually used in that particular shooting."
It appears icon was not asserting to that sentence, but was simply quoting what beevul had finished his post 11 with, icon thinking it was me, thus the new quotes - why would icon put quotes about something he himself wrote? Icon likely assumed that beevul was quoting jimmy as saying "no body armor was actually used.." , then icon to spite jimmy, wrote 'I see young James is keeping to his usual standard of factual accuracy...'

Icon was then caught between a rock & a hard place, unable to correct beevul since it would expose icon's own confusion as to who said what, and it would redirect icon's ad hominem towards beevul & lift it off jimmy.
Icon made no further remark about the substance of anything, just some feeble reference to the rhetorical skills of john Gielgud.

So what is it, icon? do you agree with beevul that 'no body armor was actually used in that particular shooting'? and thus disagree with myself & crusader that some body armor was actually used by holmes?

What's in a name? --- con, sham, eevul --- Come up with your own, readers!

[GGJohn]

29. sigh, James, James, James,

you just can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong about Holmes wearing a bullet resistant vest can you?
And your long winded word salads prove nothing other than you have no clue of what you're talking about.

Now, I'm waiting with great anticipation for the next long winded word salad that means nothing.

[jimmy the one]

39. gg's big adams apple, why?

ggjohn: you just can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong about Holmes wearing a bullet resistant vest can you?

I'm not wrong. You are. Turns out he was indeed wearing a bullet vest or some body armor, on some areas. Oh, & you now say 'wearing' so you're obviously at odds with that bozo who says 'used' while meaning actually getting shot. So we've gone from 'wearing' to 'used' to 'stopping a bullet', according to the rkba clown car with you & beevul sitting in prominent positions.
.. also, I didn't initially say he was wearing a bpv, just that the parents of a victim were suing that he had gotten one so easily.

ggjohn: And your long winded word salads prove nothing other than you have no clue of what you're talking about.

Turns out it's you who has his foot stuck in his mouth, what a large adams apple you have gg. Or is that you choking on a salad, or something?

[GGJohn]

40. LOL.

Another long winded word salad from James.

[oneshooter]

41. I wonder how many keyboards he has gon through.

Just to be laughed at and ignored.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. You wrote all that to answer my question (with a supposition, no less)?

[GGJohn]

15. Sigh, James, James, James.

What does him being a possible repub have to do with this?
HE FOLLOWED THE LAW.
The PLCAA is very clear, you can't sue a firearm company, manufacturer for the illegal/negligent use of their product by a 3rd party and the Brady Bunch and those lawyers knew this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. *cough**cough*...Dunning-Kruger effect...*ahem*

[Fred Sanders]

27. Gun and NRA lovers have as much empathy as Republicans and the NRA in general, meaning none. Well said.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. You forget, Fred, that moralizing requires moral authority to work

And you two have none...

[GGJohn]

30. You can interpet that word salad? eom.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Fred, you were taken in by a fake "reality" video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=253473

And rather happy about it at the time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=253484

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172163317#post42

I..... am cheering a lot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=168674

So much for whatever quantum of credibility you had left...