EastCoastNiner

Have Bearsfan post his picture in here. He has it for some reason. He looks hispanic/white. He called me and I told him, "This is Willie", and he said he had the wrong number and someone told him to call my number. .

Warren2ThaG called me tonight. .

Right, after Burrows kept shoving him, and they both had gloves in each others face. However, one player decided to be a little bitch and bite the others fingers. Once I saw you make this post, I was 99% sure Scott Hartnell did the same thing, and I was correct. I'm not surprised you're defending that action now.

It's only one game, and the Bruins lost game one against both the Canadiens and Lightning, and managed to adjust. I haven't been on the anti-Recchi wagon like many Bruins fans, but I think I may be joining that wagon. He is making some terrible players out there, and just can't keep up. Also, the Bruins PP wasn't that poor at all tonight. It was much better than it has been all playoffs for the most part, but they needed to score on that 5 on 3. Both teams had their chances, with the Canucks getting the better scoring chances, but for a team that was built up to be an unbeatable team, the Canucks sure as hell didn't look like that tonight. The Sedins did nothing against Chara tonight, and hopefully that continues. It'd be cool if the Canucks didn't like to bite people either. Not to mention the disgrace to the NHL that Henrik Sedin is becoming. Someone needs to tell him he doesn't need to constantly dive. He's an absolute embarrassment to the NHL in that regard. It's downright pathetic, and yes, more pathetic than the Bruins PP if you were looking to get that joke in.......

I can't say I'm surprised..... dabearfan101 12:50 am wats that lebron james [expletive]er video with that hokcey player u still ahve it? Planethockey1 12:50 am lol i can find it dabearfan101 12:50 am linkky plz Planethockey1 12:50 am n how dare u say hockey player u better know his name dabearfan101 12:50 am lol hanken somethin right? haniken Planethockey1 12:51 am lol wutttttttt u serious? dabearfan101 12:51 am yes Planethockey1 12:51 am smh smh wow dabearfan101 12:51 am lol Planethockey1 12:51 am O-V-E-C-H-K-I-N dabearfan101 12:51 am yeah i was gonna say that Planethockey1 12:51 am smh wuts up primetime lmao Planethockey1 12:52 am im not even gunna talk to u who doesnt know Ovechkin like wtffffffffffff dabearfan101 12:53 am head the amazin if its not toews kane i dont caaaaaaaaareeee Planethockey1 12:53 am so u dont know Crosby either smh dabearfan101 12:53 am i know niemi but he broke my heart Planethockey1 12:55 am do u know who crosby isd is* dabearfan101 12:55 am sadly yes ; (

http://media.offbeatbride.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/6/files/2011/02/bridesmaids-movie-poster-xlarge-300x444.jpg This was a funny ass movie, and the plot made it great!

I've been avoiding posting in here because i'm superstitious, but screw it. The keys to the series for the Bruins will be: 1. Zdeno Chara against the Sedins 2. Bruins special teams 3. The play of the Bruins second and third pairings. The Canucks have a lot of talent up front on their first line, and Kesler as well, but after that I like the Bruins forwards a lot more. I hear Canucks fans say all the time that they are the fastest team in the league, but that is flat out false. The Canadiens are a faster team than the Canucks, and the Bruins dealt with their speed decently, but, the Canucks have more offensive firepower. If the officiating allows for a physical series, the Bruins have a pretty good chance at beating the Canucks. Honestly, Canucks fan have been becoming more and more annoying the past few years with the hype of their teams, and it would be great to see them lose because of that as well. The Bruins just need to stay out of the box. If they do not do that, this series could be over before you know it. If they stay out of the box, they have a good chance at winning this series.

I'd call mine "Omg Idk Wow!".

I feel that the Patriots biggest need is a true deep threat. Their offense was excellent during the regular season, but once the playoffs come, you need to have a game breaker.

I'm always thinking the same thing when he makes threads and certain posts. .

They are, just like my predictions were much more accurate than yours last year. Now, you can shoo along and go make your Packers thread.

You sure it's not syringes in your ears? Talk to me in three years when the Patriots and 49er's have three more combined.

We'll see about that this year. Players on the Patriots defense that juice have been suspended, so it's only a matter of time before the Packers have about six suspensions on defense this season. Then, they won't be able to stop a paper cut. The Patriots have to play.....real teams. They don't play cream puffs like the NFC North, the same division they shit on last year. This is the Patriots year, and a new dynasty will be formed. Brady will win MVP again, Manning will have his place BEHIND Brady for sure, and the Patriots will dominate this season.

You better believe that if you come into a store wielding a gun, that you are going to get shot at if any of the employees have a gun. Would you have a problem with the kid being dead if he died from the first shot? The end result would be the same for the kid.

Good thing this pharmacy didn't have a policy like Best Buy does where an employee is not allowed to get involved with a crime in progress. Good try though, and maybe you should actually read the story next time. I know exactly what story you are talking about, and Best Buy has policies regarding robberies. It's just one more fail to add you in this thread.

It's funny that you have no clue what you are talking about, and not once did I say he was going to continue to rob the store. . You also don't know that he couldn't have gotten up and attacked the pharmacist.

This has nothing to do with a liberal or conservative debate, at all. It comes down to this. You firmly believe that the threat was neutralized because the pharmacist shot the kid in the head, in your opinion had a clear state of mind to chase the other kid out of the store and fire two shots at him, had a clear state of mind because he grabbed another gun, and had a clear state of mind while shooting the kid who was originally shot in the head with six more bullets, as you believe that kid posed no threat whatsoever. Do I understand that argument? Yes, I completely understand it, but I am disagreeing with the pharmacist having a clear state of mind and completely knowing what he was doing. I contend that he may have had many thoughts racing through his mind, and may have acted "excessively" (although I don't really agree that he did), but his excessive actions may have been a result of being in a situation that very few people have been in and may not know how to react.

I realize that it's no excuse that he was in that situation because the kids were robbing his store, but I still don't know if he used excessive force. I am not going to automatically assume that he did because nobody knows if that kid could have gotten up. And, yes, I know what you are saying with judging it off of the kind of situation and not the law, but I disagree with that because I still contend that the pharmacist could have been in danger. HOWEVER, if he were to be charged with falsifying information, impeding a police investigation, and any other types of charges like those, I would completely understand them because his story....or stories I should say, were completely false.

I agree with you that he was stupid and not straightforward with the police report, and if they want to charge him with something surrounding that problem, then fine. However, the judge was a moron and wouldn't let the defense call certain witnesses who have been in similar situations before. One situation involved a man that was shot (Yes, Nitro, SHOT), and got up and attacked the store clerk with a weapon. Also, it's as easy for me to say the pharmacist may not have had a clear mind, just as it's easy for some of you to say he did. None of us were in that situation, so you don't know how you'd respond. I just think it's dumb that this guy would never have been tried if those punks never tried to rob the store. This pharmacist taught one of those punks a lesson, along with the rest of the country, that there will be no sympathy for ass-holes like those punks. People have too much sympathy for the criminals now a days, although I know that's not the main argument here, but rather excessive force. Also, have any of you actually watched the video?

Wait, have you seen the video of the attempted robbery or no? If you have, then I have to say, you are being completely stupid with your posts. If you haven't, I can provide you with a link to the attempted robbery.

I'm not saying this in a rude way, but did you read any of the links I provided? Some of the questions are answered in those links.

Why are you putting "apparent" in parentheses? You can support the other side of the argument, but there's no argument to be made about the two punks intent.

I understand you guys think he went over the line and think the threat was not necessarily removed, but was "neutralized". I understand that, but disagree with it. Pretty much, the pharmacist got screwed because he didn't kill the kid in one shot or pump multiple bullets into him right away. I'm not going to humanize the situation with the kid because his intentions were clear as day. He deserved everything he got.

No, but I'm not ignorant and dumb enough to think that the pharmacist had a clear mind in that situation. Now, you may say he had a clear mind because he shot at the other kid outside the store and shot the other kid who was on the ground, but I disagree with this. If this kid was white....... Also, I don't have to be there to know the kid was robbing the [expletive]ing store. Are you retarded? .

In that case, they had a chance to remove the threat, but they did not, and multiple Navy Seals were killed in the process. In the pharmacist's case, he removed the threat, and lived to tell the tale. Even if the kid has a bullet in his head, like he deserved, that doesn't mean the threat is removed.