Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
You're not going to drag me down that rabbit hole, I gave zero opinion from which you could "know my stance."
I did provide a factual update of the criminal case, including the fact that this very successful athlete agent and former director of a major talent agency claims to be unable to fund his own defense. Unrelated, if it is subsequently found that a defendant submitted an inaccurate financial statement to secure public representation said defendant can be required to repay the government.
What if I told you the same guy who bought the Lawrence gear from mirtl was recently holding a raffle of some Jett Lawrence race worn gear as a cancer benefit? Posted about it on here, claims they know.
Maybe they do and this was the deal they came up with to make everyone closer to whole? Guy recoups some of the money he spent and it goes to decent cause. But I'm guessing they don't know. Or found out when the raffle got posted.
Can't make this shit up. One of the million vloggers out there really need to put together a reality show and pitch it to someone.
Where is this from?
Hence why a founding principal of this country is that force can be used to defend property the same way you defend life. Property is purchased with money, which is earned through sacrificing time. Ergo, when property is stolen from you, you are not losing just property but the part of your life you spent earning money to acquire it.
Regarding the public defender question, many people are sick and tired of paying for the mistakes of others when they can barely keep their heads above water. Simple as.
Mirtl could pay for a lawyer had he not blown all of his money, which is bound to upset some people. Wasserman are a bunch of scumbags from the top down and Mirtl appears to be one too. If there was ever a court case where both parties should lose big, this is one.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
That's overstating the case for defense of property. Property is either fungible or compensable, so at least in principle, the victim of a property crime can be made whole (I know, the thief often lacks the means to make the victim whole - that's why I said "in principle). If you steal my car I can get it back from you, you can get me another just like it, or be compensated for its value. If you kill someone, none of these things are possible: You can't replace people, and no amount of money will ever make a bereaved person whole.
I'd think that the justification for using lethal force when defending your property has more to do with the fact that if someone is stealing your property, then it's reasonable to infer that they're a threat to your person as well as your property so you can defend yourself and your property on that basis. There's a reason you can shoot an intruder in your house if you catch him in the act of burglary but if you find out that your boss has been ripping you off on your pay you can't walk into his office and shoot him - even if the boss is stealing much more than the intruder.
Good luck to the Mirts, you’re gonna need it lol
We're on a tangent here, but what's the legal revisionism for why hanging horse thieves was baaad?
So is this Jacob Hayes, that threatened Jo with deportation, the same Jacob Hayes that is now employed by Jett and Hunter as their official coin purse warmer?
Yeah, it's a tangent so I don't want to say much, and I'm not certain I understand the question. I take it you're saying on my reasoning, it was wrong to hang horse thieves, and that there's something wrong with that? I've never given that any thought, but it's not obvious that I'm saying anything that would imply that. I was talking about why you can be justified in using lethal force to protect yourself and your property, you're talking about punishment. Was it justifiable to hang horse thieves? For many, a horse was essential and depriving a man of his horse could have had very serious consequences. Your life and livelihood could literally depend on your horse so it was a serious punishment for a serious crime. Too harsh? I don't know - the conditions were harsh so I'm not going to judge from my present comfort.
Pit Row
Post a reply to: Lucas Mirtl Update, Case Dismissed!?