irrelevant; this law does not apply after an incident has taken place, i.e. as an act of retaliation. (revenge)

No, you retarded idiot. Using a firearm in self defense implies SHOOTING someone, not swinging it around in a threatening manner.

California, above all other states, will absolutely cornhole you (literally eventually) by putting you behind bars for several years for brandishing with no intent to fire in self defense…

The keyword is imminent. The biker was walking back to his bike. There was no imminent danger to anything at that point.

This is true, but assuming that the gun was in the trunk, he’d have been using it after the immediate danger had passed,* which would not go well.

The damage was already done. Since the biker was fleeing the car driver and his property were absolutely not in any danger. He should have thrown that rubber mallet at the biker.

Or, since neither of them was armed, or at least didn’t pull their weapons, like you seem to think they should have. The result was a broken window, a licence plate on camera, the cops pick him up, make him pay for the window and put him on probation for a few years to make sure that he doesn’t need more correction.

This doesn’t surprise me in the least. The two shows followed different rules of cartoon logic, physics, and humor, and I never felt they really fit together in the same universe. DuckTales was a Disney-style universe which was relatively naturalistic; characters maintained a consistent bodily shape and integrity, and…

The driver was not in fear for his life, he took a rubber mallet out of his trunk for revenge. He could be facing assault charges if caught.

still no.

It’s also extremely illegal to point a gun at someone. So no, not really useful at all.

If he pull out a gun it would have been a felony.

But the courts are. Educate yourself about SLAPP lawsuits.

♫ “I heard my Momma cry...I heard her pray the night the 1st Amendment died.” ♫

The problem is the NFL pussyfoots around this issue and the players realize that they can usually get away with it.

But then the NFL would have to admit there is a “problem,” so this will never happen

I don’t know if your suggestion is perfect, but it’s on the right track. Similar to the targeting rule in college, there needs to be something that makes players actually consider how they hit.

The solution to this kind of shit really isn’t that hard. When the NBA got tired of bench clearing brawls they put in a rule that says if a player even leaves the bench area during a fight, BOOM automatic suspension and fine.....The same with the NHL......As a result you hardly ever see bench clearing altercations…

Well...the ref justified it by saying the ball was out of his hand before he took the hit that was called as roughing the passer. Which I guess I can understand. What I can’t get over is how does a personal foul for roughing the passer offset with something as meaningless as intentional grounding. A personal foul like…

How can you penalize the Panthers for the ball not getting to the line of scrimmage when the ball didn’t get to the line of scrimmage because of a vicious head shot? Offsetting my ass.