a show for psychopathic/sociopathic gun nuts? - Justified (2010) Discussion

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

Go troll elsewhere.

reply

[–] ad-08353 9 years ago

Being unable to articulate a rebuttal to the points I raised in my post doesn't give you the right to make an unfounded and incorrect attack on me. If you want to avoid being laughed at, try rationally addressing the points I raised.

reply

[–] DrZaat 9 years ago

First of all, in an early episode Raylan reveals his grievance against the "victim." If you watch that, it may [or may not] modify your opinion.

Second, the vile criminal whom Raylan shot had the option of leaving Miami. He refused. Furthermore, he manipulated the situation so that he had an edge which he didn't expect Raylan to be able to overcome. So, in the confidence inspired by his duplicity, he chose to respond violently to Raylan's challenge, rather than agree to leave. Unhappily for him, despite his edge, he lost.

Third, do you actually think Raylan would have shot him if he hadn't pulled his gun? He had a choice the entire time to save his life at the cost of his "pride," but chose to throw it away because of his misplaced confidence.

Finally, I am thoroughly disgusted by the shooting of the child in Cleveland. The cops involved were completely unprofessional and uncaring. They failed to make any effort to ascertain the circumstances, failed even to determine if the child they shot was the person about whom the call had been made. The killer cop exits his car and immediately murders the child. To make matters worse, it seems that he and his partner will get off with no punishment. It's a horrific crime, and it's no wonder if trouble ensues.

However, there is no comparison between this awful, criminal tragedy and Raylan's actions. Making such incongruous comparisons simply undercuts the heinous character of the Cleveland murder. If that's your goal, then you succeeded. If not, you might want to reconsider your foolish attempt to conflate the two.

reply

[–] ad-08353 9 years ago

First, Raylan's grievance is irrelevant. It doesn't justify nor rationalise anything about Raylan's behaviour or this issue.

Second, Raylan giving the other person the option to leave Miami is, again, irrelevant. Just because one person gives another person an option to leave the state does not justify nor rationalise anything about Raylan's behaviour or this issue.

Third, whether Raylan would have shot him is, again, irrelevant. Raylan behaved deliberately to put the legitimate and reasonable fear into the other person that he would shoot him. Raylan knew this and the person was acting in self-defence.

Now consider two things:

(1) the situation where the person killed Raylan instead of the other way around. Would you consider that person to be guilty or not guilty of murder? And why? Consider American law and case precedents regarding acting in self-defence out of a fear for one's life.

(2) their roles had been reversed and US Marshall Raylan was the one eating food and it was the other guy giving Raylan the option to leave the state. If Raylan had gone for his gun, would you say the other guy was okay to kill Raylan and not face any punishment? If Raylan had beaten the guy to the draw and killed him, would your answer be the same or different to your answer in number (1)?

Basically, Raylan acted in a similar manner to the cop who shot the 12yo kid. And similar to many cops and others in America who are gun happy and all too quick to draw and fire their guns. Resorting to gunfights is alarmingly the first option to resolve disagreements and many other situations. I just read an article about a mother shooting her daughter dead when the daughter was walking through the house in the dark.

reply

[–] DrZaat 9 years ago

I disagree completely, but I can see that it's fruitless to continue the discussion.

I recommend you find another show more suited to your sensibilities.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DrZaat 9 years ago

You're rather full of yourself, aren't you? You rebutted nothing, you merely made counter assertions which have as little merit as your original post. Your mind is clearly closed, which is why I withdrew from this discussion. However, for the sake of others who may read this thread and be misled into thinking you have a point, I'll dispose of your "rebuttals" and then abandon this otherwise fruitless topic.

Tommy, the "victim" who arouses your maidenly sympathies, was a killer, a brutal, torturing killer, whom Raylan witnessed cruelly murdering a man. This occurred outside the US, so there is no jurisdictional grounds for arresting Tommy. Raylan, who was sickened by Tommy's depravity, upon spotting Tommy in Miami, told him to leave or be killed. Legal? Probably not. Just? More so than allowing Tommy to remain and letting him feel like he'd gotten away with it.

Tommy could have left town. Instead, out of pride, he remained, and, when Raylan came to confront him, Tommy was waiting with his gun already out of it's holster, certain that he could kill Raylan before Raylan could draw his weapon. Even then, Tommy could have simply agreed to leave town. He didn't. He pulled his gun intending to kill Raylan. Raylan then drew and killed Tommy instead--one less scumbag in the world.

As for your two "points": I really couldn't care less about case law and legal precedents. What I know is that Tommy was sitting there with his gun already out, ready to kill Raylan if Raylan insisted that Tommy leave town. In fact, Tommy had set what he saw as a trap for Raylan. The fact that Tommy fell into his own trap doesn't change the fact that he was sitting there intending to kill Raylan and had his gun ready. If anyone acted in self-defense in that situation, it was Raylan.

Your second point is equally inane. Instead of a marshal telling a brutal killer to leave town, you have a brutal killer telling a marshal to leave. Why would the marshal go? What kind of hubris would it take for a criminal to make such a demand? Are you really as dim as you seem?

Your comparison of Raylan's action in this case to that of the killer cop in Cleveland merely trivializes the Cleveland murder. Unlike the Cleveland killer cop, Raylan knew exactly with whom he was dealing. Raylan didn't gun down an innocent twelve-year-old kid. He shot a murderer whom Raylan had witnessed committing his crime. Raylan didn't blindly start shooting without a clue as to what was up. He calmly told Tommy to leave, giving him ample opportunity to get away. Tommy, not Raylan, decided to choose violence. If you can't see that, then you're not worth talking to. Goodbye.

reply

[–] Swifty21 9 years ago

there are enough liberal porpaganda show, go watch those let us enjoy our show.
wether you agree with "gun-nuts" is irrelevant.
we have our opiniion you have yours.

we like this show, seriously bro there are enough diverse shows.

thought u wa s about diversity.

reply

[–] rscottcarlson 9 years ago

It's a TV show. A modern western. You don't like it, don't watch it. And don't expect to get return fire for your obviously trollish, passive-aggressive post!

reply

[–] pjmcgill142 9 years ago

Resorting to gunfights is alarmingly the first option to resolve disagreements and many other situations.

You may or may not be aware that that God-given firearm regularly saves the lives of many law abiding Americans. Somewhere between 500,000 and 3 million! Vague, I know, but it's a much loved stat.

But to your point, yes, Raylan forced the guy into a situation where he had to draw. Like I say with Dirty Harry movies, if you want to watch a police (or US Marshall) procedural, this is not the place. Watch police set up road blocks, isolate, contain and negotiate every single event, and it would get boring very quickly.

And similar to many cops and others in America who are gun happy and all too quick to draw and fire their guns.

A good overall, general description of police. But, generalisations, as they say, are generally wrong. It's not for everyone to make split-second-life-and-death decisions regularly that are then dissected and analysed over many months by people who were not there. Really, why didn't they simply shoot the gun out of his hand? Couldn't they just use karate on the ice affected knife wielding aresh*le? And who couldn't distinguish a plastic gun from the real deal in a split second, in the dark?

Thankfully, there is a group of people who will do "the job". No one wishes for that 'bad day', but if it happens, they want to go home at the end of the shift.

I just read an article about a mother shooting her daughter dead when the daughter was walking through the house in the dark.

Just the one? I've read too many.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

Get up off of your knees, get dressed, and leave the men's room glory hole - you are sucking too much c0ck to be taken seriously.

Your points don't need to be addressed because you base all of your bullsh!t on falsehoods. His first "victim" is not an innocent person, therefore the rest of the cr*p you spew isn't worth discussing.

In addition, you chose to use a liberal hysteria phrase for your title.

Had you come here and been reasonable and based your argument upon facts then there might have been a reason to have a discussion.

Since you didn't, it is obvious you are a troll whose only wish was to insult people and stir up cr*p.

*beep* you.

Don't bother replying to me, I put anus licking scumbags like you on ignore.

reply

[–] charli3 9 years ago

👏

reply

[–] appljax36 9 years ago

👏

reply

[–] shuglife 9 years ago

Raylan worked outside the law to deal with a career criminal in the opening scene. Raylan "played" the system similar to how an established criminal plays the system, by staying out of jail by using technicalities and paying off officials. Raylan pushed the criminal to draw first so he could shoot him. His intenet was pretty clear but legally due to technicalities, his shooting was Justified.

I know the similarities you are drawing is a member of law enforcement shot someone and in your eyes both are murders. But bot incidents are too different to draw comparisons beyond the end result, a law enforcement officer shot and killed someone. All other circumstances between the 2 incidents are completely different.

----------------------------------------
Is this Idaho? Because I will not limbo in Idaho.

reply

[–] marknathanziff 9 years ago

That victim & Raylan had history, and the thing about Raylan is his ability to back opponents into a corner where they will react in a given fashion.

reply

[–] asguy1 9 years ago

BTW, that shooting of the 12 year old you mentioned? It was JUSTIFIED.

reply

[–] Doom 9 years ago

Uh oh, here we go...



------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

[–] DrZaat 9 years ago

"BTW, that shooting of the 12 year old you mentioned? It was JUSTIFIED."

You're full of crap. The two cops involved acted completely unprofessionally and with no care for the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Their first, and most important, mistake was pulling up almost on top of the kid, instead of stopping some distance away so they could assess the situation. For all they knew, the child wasn't even the person about whom the call was made. However, they made no effort to find out what was up.

Within a couple seconds of their car stopping, the killer cop was firing at the 12-year-old child. After that, they made no effort to render first aid. The cop is a murderer, and his partner ought to be fired for incompetence, at least.

If it were your kid, you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense here. If it were mine, I'd be looking for that cop.

reply

[–] Critical Eye UK 9 years ago

Something of a surprise to find that anyone could conflate a work of fiction with reality. "Justified" pandered to psychopaths and sociopaths in the same way that films like "The Dam Busters" (long before your time, probably) pandered to Brits who hate Germans. Start down the road you've chosen to tread and everything can be re-interpreted to the looniest of agendas (I'm appalled, for example, that any film dare misrepresent women AND incite them to violence in the way signalled by the movie title "Annie Get Your Gun", whilst as for the serial mistreatment of innocents, nothing is more nauseating than "Mary Poppins" and its reckless disregard for the safety of children in having them fly over London's roof tops without seat belts.)

"Justified" was a freewheeling reprise of an Old West that never actually existed, but a reprise executed with such bravura that I doubt it will ever be equalled. Congratulations are due to all involved (and especially, to Graham Yost) for a work that though harkening back to earlier celluloid simplicities was anything but simple-minded: script engineering has never been better than that on display here, nor have ensemble playing, direction, cinematography and production values either.

As a Brit with a half-century association with cinema and TV, I salute all concerned. I'd say even more but unfortunately, it's time for me to go: I have to find someone to shoot (ideally, a German) before afternoon tea.

reply

[–] Critical Eye UK 9 years ago

Something of a surprise to find that anyone could conflate a work of fiction with reality. "Justified" pandered to psychopaths and sociopaths in the same way that films like "The Dam Busters" (long before your time, probably) pandered to Brits who hate Germans. Start down the road you've chosen to tread and everything can be re-interpreted to the looniest of agendas (I'm appalled, for example, that any film dare misrepresent women AND incite them to violence in the way signalled by the movie title "Annie Get Your Gun", whilst as for the serial mistreatment of innocents, nothing is more nauseating than "Mary Poppins" and its reckless disregard for the safety of children in having them fly over London's roof tops without seat belts.)

"Justified" was a freewheeling reprise of an Old West that never actually existed, but a reprise executed with such bravura that I doubt it will ever be equalled. Congratulations are due to all involved (and especially, to Graham Yost) for a work that though harkening back to earlier celluloid simplicities was anything but simple-minded: script engineering has never been better than that on display here, nor have ensemble playing, direction, cinematography and production values either.

As a Brit with a half-century association with cinema and TV, I salute all concerned. I'd say even more but unfortunately, it's time for me to go: I have to find someone to shoot (ideally, a German) before afternoon tea.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cntrybrat-185-511160 9 years ago

I'm not a gun nut. ..actually hate guns but I love this show

reply