Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

Recommended Videos

FFHAuthor

New member
Aug 1, 2010
687
0
0
Bento Box said:
FFHAuthor said:
Bento Box said:
What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.
You have every right to base your argument on the equality clause, but frankly, you would have done better to use the 14th Amendment which actually comes close enough to enforcing the Constitution on the States. But if you wish to ignore every aspect of history related to the creation of the document, every statement made by the individuals who wrote and signed it, and ignore the causes of the very existence of it...do so, but ignorance of all aspects does not make you correct, it simply makes you ignorant, and willfully so.
"Comes close enough?" It says, exactly, that the Federal Constitution TRUMPS any state constitution, where enumerated rights are concerned.

If your whole argument is that the constitution doesn't cover what individuals do, I call horseshit there, too -- if a mob gagged the Phelps family by making them feel threatened (and beating them), and the state was complicit, then that makes this a civil rights issue. The state doesn't get to ignore the single most important right in this whole damn country.
Okay, speaking in that hypothetical circumstance, then yes, the Federal laws do apply to the incident. But again you're commenting on the actions of a State Government, whose laws were overruled by the implementation of the fourteenth amendment, and whose actions would be dictated by Article IV Section 4. But that is a tenuous justification without the Fourteenth.

If you look at the entirety of that document you'll see one thing, there is not a single aspect of the Constitution whose language applies to restrictions of the individual except for two places, within the Fourteenth Amendment and that the only crime that you can commit within the constitution, Treason.

If in the entirety of this document, it applied to every American Citizen then why, -why- is every single reference and statement of powers, of duties, responsibilities, and limitations on power, apply to the Federal government, while every right applies to the individuals. The Ninth Amendment expressly guarantees the rights of the individual to everything and anything not restricted or limited within the Constitution. Does that mean Murder is legal because it's not forbidden in the Constitution?

What about the Tenth? If the Constitution was directed at all levels of the United States, why does it give all powers not delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited by it to the States or to the people? It's not speaking of what the states can do with federal permission, it's stating that which the States didn't give the Federal Government Authority over, they don't have authority government.

Taking it all the way, if the Federal Government trumps the legal considerations and power of the states, then why did the States vote to create it, and why do the states have say in ratification of Amendments? Why are Senators under the Constitution appointed representatives of their states?
 

Glerken

New member
Dec 18, 2008
1,539
0
0
RT-Medic-with-shotgun said:
Bento Box said:
Scipio1770 said:
zarix2311 said:
chiggerwood said:
Really I see this as a shallow, and hollow nothing. I won't even call it a victory of any kind. I do not see what there is to celebrate when people are resorting to violence, and/or abusing the law. They had no right to attack W.B.C., or hold them. Really the fact that I have to defend the W.B.C. is a sad commentary in and of itself. I despise Communism, but I'm not going to start attacking Communist.

Let me make a quick point, and leave it at that, and the point is there are only 72 people in the W.B.C.'s congregation. We should not be giving 72 crazy people this kind of attention; it only empowers them to continue. I can guarantee you that right now they are quoting "Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

and Luke 6:22 "Blessed are you when people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because you are committed to the Son of Man."

Really the best thing you can do about these people is ignore them completely, [sarcasm]but thank you Mississippi for making them feel good about themselves, and empowering there cause.[sarcasm end]
Fuck! He's totally right.
not at all. Ignoring a tumor only invites it to spread.

The WBC survives solely by agitating society enough to drain money out of it through lawsuits. By giving the group the blind eye, the US has allowed the WBC to perfect it's method. The WBC has learned to target funerals and schools, travel to more easily provoked communities, and countless other tactics to successfully play the legal system.

The only way to eliminate this tumor is either to freeze it, extract it, or eradicate it. By that i mean to freeze financial assets and take away tax exempt status of a church, extract from society by only allowing WBC protests in certain public areas away from their targets, or eradicate.. through less than legal means.
God damn it, this is so simple -- JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CHANGE WHICH RIGHTS THEY HAVE.

By what RIGHT would you freeze their assets? They've done nothing illegal.
By what RIGHT would you kill their tax exempt status as a church? Don' get me wrong -- I think that ALL religious institutions should have their tax exemptions revoked, but how do you decide to support, say, Pat Robertson's ministries, and not Fred Phelps'?

Also, they are already required to stay a certain distance from the funeral, just like any public display must.
Bull spit. In a perfect world freedom of speech would come with the qualification that you do so responsibly and keep to the rights others have no to be pestered by you. Not only that but i am fairly certain WBC counts as a cult; they don't count as Baptist;i am pretty sure the Baptist church as a whole has said "we aren't with them!".

Now lets ignore the fact we do not agree with their message for a moment; the oh so worshiped first amendment is a statement preventing CONGRESS or the governing body from making a law to prohibit WBC churches. A citizen hindering the speed with which you act upon your freedom of speech is not illegal as far as i know and if it is you had better post proof.

Westboro not-baptist church is just as he said; a tumor that should not be ignored.
Assets could be frozen on the grounds they are not baptist and therefore technically a cult also capable of having tax exempt status removed.

As for killing them i don't like killing people but WBC is a verminous stain on the face of the country and i say good riddance and 'No officer i didn't see the shooter".
Baptist: A member of a Protestant Christian denomination advocating baptism only of adult believers by total immersion.

...Yup.
They're Baptist.
 

icame

New member
Aug 4, 2010
2,649
0
0
Good. Everything that happens to these people deserve and I would gladly buy anyone who did anything against them a beer. Hats off to you.
 

Bento Box

New member
Mar 3, 2011
138
0
0
smallthemouse said:
Bento Box said:
Gaming King said:
Con Carne said:
This article is about a town in Mississippi called Rankin. Who thwarted the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting another funeral.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/04/westboro-baptists-defeated.html#more

My hat is off to the town of Rankin. I just hope more people and places begin doing more against the church.
Fuck yeah, but please don't call them a "church," because that's only a front. And we all know it.
We don't "all know it." What is the difference between WBC and Saddleback? Only the noise of their conviction, and the pH of their vitriol. They believe the same things; WBC is just louder.
If it was your family member, you would not be defending them.
Yes I would. I really don't think you've read what I've been saying this whole time (which I can forgive, because I've been here since page one). Fred Phelps and his ilk are repugnant pustules of hatred and all the worst parts of humanity. They still have the right to protest. I hate everything that they say, but they're allowed to say it.
 

XandNobody

Oh for...
Aug 4, 2010
308
0
0
Alright, for the record here, if we are going to keep talking about the first amendment, lets keep in mind that it relates only to the government, shall we? So out of all this, the only thing I see that honestly breaks this, is the thing with the arresting of those who did make it for *insert crime here*. That, is worrying, that is a government agency crossing a line. A scary, scary, line.

The rest?

Meh. Double parking is a crime, it was thusly reported, and the tow driver couldn't make it on time. Just makes that stunt well thought out and clever as hell. The guy who got beat? Well, that is assault, also a crime, but if you really have no witnesses who will come forward, there isn't much that is going to stop it. Sad fact of life every day more than it is anything else, sad to say.

In the end though? Damn glad of the result, those monsters at Westboro are bloody insane hatemongers.
 

Fleischer

New member
Jan 8, 2011
218
0
0
Bobbity said:
Damn, that's a pretty classy way of doing it.

Personally, I would have just forcibly dropped them all off in a room in a hotel, and kept them locked up for the duration of the funeral.
So you'd kidnap them?
 

Bobbity

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,659
0
0
/edit
I guess I let my imagination run away with me; I wouldn't actually kidnap anyone :p

Think that the town took the right approach here, and I'd try to emulate that, I guess.
 

Rayne870

New member
Nov 28, 2010
1,250
0
0
Reminds me of home...back there half the justice was behind the courthouse. Good on Rankin.
 

Fleischer

New member
Jan 8, 2011
218
0
0
N3vans said:
Yes, everyone should have free speech (technicalities of the amendments aside). However, this only goes so far. When you aren't putting across anything constructive, logical or even sane in the WBC's case, then it's time to kindly "off you fuck".
Incorrect. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Phelps last year over this issue.

N3vans said:
If you went into a bar and told someone 'I shagged your mum so hard I split her in half', they'd be well within their rights to knock your teeth out. The same applies to insulting people's intelligence in public, belittling them and generally being a wanker.
No. No. And, no. Feel free to ask a lawyer or police officer if irritating someone gives a person just grounds to commit battery and/or assault.
 

smallthemouse

New member
Feb 21, 2011
117
0
0
Bento Box said:
smallthemouse said:
Bento Box said:
Gaming King said:
Con Carne said:
This article is about a town in Mississippi called Rankin. Who thwarted the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting another funeral.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/04/westboro-baptists-defeated.html#more

My hat is off to the town of Rankin. I just hope more people and places begin doing more against the church.
Fuck yeah, but please don't call them a "church," because that's only a front. And we all know it.
We don't "all know it." What is the difference between WBC and Saddleback? Only the noise of their conviction, and the pH of their vitriol. They believe the same things; WBC is just louder.
If it was your family member, you would not be defending them.
Yes I would. I really don't think you've read what I've been saying this whole time (which I can forgive, because I've been here since page one). Fred Phelps and his ilk are repugnant pustules of hatred and all the worst parts of humanity. They still have the right to protest. I hate everything that they say, but they're allowed to say it.
No you wouldn't, you can say that now while your composed and idealistic, but when you're in grieving and crying, the last thing you're going to be thinking about is, "THANK GOD FOR THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION PROTECTING PEOPLES RIGHTS TO BE DICKHEADS I FULLY SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE KICKING ME WHEN IM DOWN"
 

Fleischer

New member
Jan 8, 2011
218
0
0
Bobbity said:
Fleischer said:
So you'd kidnap them?
Essentially, yes. I'd be very polite about it, and almost sarcastically nice, but no way would they be leaving the hotel until that funeral was over.

I wouldn't support the government taking action like this, because of the dangerous precedent it sets, but I'd be perfectly happy to do so.
Kidnapping is a federal offense, my friend. Like someone or not, you are not allowed to commit crimes against them.
 

Rune342

New member
Aug 26, 2008
430
0
0
Wow, such a coordinated effort against the WBC. I like it! May this serve as a good example for future reference.
 

Hader

New member
Jul 7, 2010
1,648
0
0
Kortney said:
Every thread about the WBC is a victory to them. Don't you realise that this is exactly what they want us to be doing. They want us to be offended and pissed off and they want us to run to the internet and talk about them and spread what they have been doing.

Just ignore them. Everything will go away if you do.
These guys are the most successful trolls of our day!

Oh shit, now we both contributed to their nonsense by posting here. Better go shoot myself in the foot!
 

Bento Box

New member
Mar 3, 2011
138
0
0
FFHAuthor said:
Bento Box said:
FFHAuthor said:
Bento Box said:
What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.
You have every right to base your argument on the equality clause, but frankly, you would have done better to use the 14th Amendment which actually comes close enough to enforcing the Constitution on the States. But if you wish to ignore every aspect of history related to the creation of the document, every statement made by the individuals who wrote and signed it, and ignore the causes of the very existence of it...do so, but ignorance of all aspects does not make you correct, it simply makes you ignorant, and willfully so.
"Comes close enough?" It says, exactly, that the Federal Constitution TRUMPS any state constitution, where enumerated rights are concerned.

If your whole argument is that the constitution doesn't cover what individuals do, I call horseshit there, too -- if a mob gagged the Phelps family by making them feel threatened (and beating them), and the state was complicit, then that makes this a civil rights issue. The state doesn't get to ignore the single most important right in this whole damn country.
Okay, speaking in that hypothetical circumstance, then yes, the Federal laws do apply to the incident. But again you're commenting on the actions of a State Government, whose laws were overruled by the implementation of the fourteenth amendment, and whose actions would be dictated by Article IV Section 4. But that is a tenuous justification without the Fourteenth.

If you look at the entirety of that document you'll see one thing, there is not a single aspect of the Constitution whose language applies to restrictions of the individual except for two places, within the Fourteenth Amendment and that the only crime that you can commit within the constitution, Treason.

If in the entirety of this document, it applied to every American Citizen then why, -why- is every single reference and statement of powers, of duties, responsibilities, and limitations on power, apply to the Federal government, while every right applies to the individuals. The Ninth Amendment expressly guarantees the rights of the individual to everything and anything not restricted or limited within the Constitution. Does that mean Murder is legal because it's not forbidden in the Constitution?

What about the Tenth? If the Constitution was directed at all levels of the United States, why does it give all powers not delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited by it to the States or to the people? It's not speaking of what the states can do with federal permission, it's stating that which the States didn't give the Federal Government Authority over, they don't have authority government.

Taking it all the way, if the Federal Government trumps the legal considerations and power of the states, then why did the States vote to create it, and why do the states have say in ratification of Amendments? Why are Senators under the Constitution appointed representatives of their states?
I'm not sure I'm following you, and it might be because I'm eager to stop reading, and get to something a little bit less tiny-black-dots-on-a-whole-lot-of-bright-white dots. I'm happy to pick this up another time, but let me make sure I know what I'm arguing about.

You're saying that the things not enumerated in the constitution are (tautologically) not covered by the constitution. That's fine. Incidentally, murder is covered in the constitution -- "...shall not be deprived of life..." I'm nitpicking, though, and digressing. Again, happy to come back to that.

Your last question is what really bugs me. I'd think it's pretty obvious that the states voted to create it because they understood that if they were to operate as a nation, then the nation would need laws. They wanted to govern themselves, of course, but if they were going to get the perks that a nation has, then they had to put some basic rules in place that would be recognized by the whole nation. It's literally the states saying, "if Rhode Island can get away with it, then so can I!" or, "If I can't get away with it, then neither can Rhode Island!" The states were creating a level playing field.

Anyway, that's all the words I've got in me tonight. The number of times i had to backspace through that was downright embarrassing.
 

Scipio1770

New member
Oct 3, 2010
102
0
0
Bento Box said:
Scipio1770 said:
Bento Box said:
Scipio1770 said:
zarix2311 said:
chiggerwood said:
Really I see this as a shallow, and hollow nothing. I won't even call it a victory of any kind. I do not see what there is to celebrate when people are resorting to violence, and/or abusing the law. They had no right to attack W.B.C., or hold them. Really the fact that I have to defend the W.B.C. is a sad commentary in and of itself. I despise Communism, but I'm not going to start attacking Communist.

Let me make a quick point, and leave it at that, and the point is there are only 72 people in the W.B.C.'s congregation. We should not be giving 72 crazy people this kind of attention; it only empowers them to continue. I can guarantee you that right now they are quoting "Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

and Luke 6:22 "Blessed are you when people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because you are committed to the Son of Man."

Really the best thing you can do about these people is ignore them completely, [sarcasm]but thank you Mississippi for making them feel good about themselves, and empowering there cause.[sarcasm end]
Fuck! He's totally right.
not at all. Ignoring a tumor only invites it to spread.

The WBC survives solely by agitating society enough to drain money out of it through lawsuits. By giving the group the blind eye, the US has allowed the WBC to perfect it's method. The WBC has learned to target funerals and schools, travel to more easily provoked communities, and countless other tactics to successfully play the legal system.

The only way to eliminate this tumor is either to freeze it, extract it, or eradicate it. By that i mean to freeze financial assets and take away tax exempt status of a church, extract from society by only allowing WBC protests in certain public areas away from their targets, or eradicate.. through less than legal means.
God damn it, this is so simple -- JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CHANGE WHICH RIGHTS THEY HAVE.

By what RIGHT would you freeze their assets? They've done nothing illegal.
By what RIGHT would you kill their tax exempt status as a church? Don' get me wrong -- I think that ALL religious institutions should have their tax exemptions revoked, but how do you decide to support, say, Pat Robertson's ministries, and not Fred Phelps'?

Also, they are already required to stay a certain distance from the funeral, just like any public display must.
1. freezing financial assets. with the proper funding and legal backing, WBC could be brought to court for their use of predatory lawsuits (notice this would be an entirely separate case from their protesting), whether or not the case wins, their finances gained from these lawsuits could be frozen for the investigation. Court cases take a long time to finish, and therefore in the right hands WBC could be financially held down for quite some time. All done through the code of law.

2. taking away tax exempt status. In order to maintain a tax exempt status, churches must prove that the organization's main purpose is that of worship and secondary communitarian goals. If the WBC can be proven to use most of it's resources towards political activities (such as protests) instead of church functions, then it is no longer legally recognized as a church and therefore taxed. all done through the code of law.
Getting really, really tired of typing (and I want to do something other than argue on the internet with my last couple hours of waking :p) so I'll be succinct.

1. If their lawsuits are all valid, then they can't really be called predatory, and certainly not unlawful (I know you didn't use that word, but I think it's where you were pointing).

2. Just because it's a protest, doesn't make it a political activity. They aren't calling for legislation; they're protesting, and peaceably so, with zero defined political ends.
lol well let's make it brief then,

1. whether or not they are valid didnt really matter, the point would be to keep them tied up with paperwork and limit their strength. the lawsuits are legal but exploitive, and therefore this plan would use the same tactics against them.

2. Actually the WBC has repeatedly protested about the wars in the middle east and the legal statuses of homosexuals. Both topics relate to US foreign and domestic policy, and are clearly very politically motivated.
 

Iron Lightning

Lightweight Extreme
Oct 19, 2009
1,237
0
0
Bobbity said:
Fleischer said:
Bobbity said:
Damn, that's a pretty classy way of doing it.

Personally, I would have just forcibly dropped them all off in a room in a hotel, and kept them locked up for the duration of the funeral.
So you'd kidnap them?
Essentially, yes. I'd be very polite about it, and almost sarcastically nice, but no way would they be leaving the hotel until that funeral was over.

I wouldn't support the government taking action like this, because of the dangerous precedent it sets, but I'd be perfectly happy to do so.
0_0

So... uhh... you feel perfectly fine with kidnapping individuals just because you don't agree with their beliefs. Why are you even on an internet forum if you react so violently to dissenting views (even if they are as stupid as the views of the WBC and a fair chunk of the internet?)

Wait a minute... I think I hear something... WHAT'S THAT SNEAKING UP BEHIN
 

Bento Box

New member
Mar 3, 2011
138
0
0
smallthemouse said:
Bento Box said:
smallthemouse said:
Bento Box said:
Gaming King said:
Con Carne said:
This article is about a town in Mississippi called Rankin. Who thwarted the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting another funeral.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/04/westboro-baptists-defeated.html#more

My hat is off to the town of Rankin. I just hope more people and places begin doing more against the church.
Fuck yeah, but please don't call them a "church," because that's only a front. And we all know it.
We don't "all know it." What is the difference between WBC and Saddleback? Only the noise of their conviction, and the pH of their vitriol. They believe the same things; WBC is just louder.
If it was your family member, you would not be defending them.
Yes I would. I really don't think you've read what I've been saying this whole time (which I can forgive, because I've been here since page one). Fred Phelps and his ilk are repugnant pustules of hatred and all the worst parts of humanity. They still have the right to protest. I hate everything that they say, but they're allowed to say it.
No you wouldn't, you can say that now while your composed and idealistic, but when you're in grieving and crying, the last thing you're going to be thinking about is, "THANK GOD FOR THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION PROTECTING PEOPLES RIGHTS TO BE DICKHEADS I FULLY SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE KICKING ME WHEN IM DOWN"
I'm generally a pretty chill guy, but you know what? You're right -- I'd probably want the very worst for them. In fact, I want the very worst for them now. I might even get fired up and sock one of them myself in that situation.

Once I calmed down and came to my senses, though? I'd inevitably have to recognize that what I did made me a hypocrite.
 

Sarpedon

New member
Feb 9, 2011
429
0
0
Sandytimeman said:
I agree. This needed to happen, to be honest I kind of wish that someone would snap and take a spray of machine gun fire across their protest line.
No, you don't want that. Trust me. I hope no one takes it into their own hands to that extent, unless they can be absolutely certain that every member of the church is present and will perish in the attack. If not, then the surviving members of the church will eat it up like cake, and present their dead as "martyrs" to their cause. The people are fanatics, and I highly doubt that some gunfire and death will deter them from their course. It would only spur them to greater venom and hate.
 

smallthemouse

New member
Feb 21, 2011
117
0
0
Iron Lightning said:
smallthemouse said:
I think everyone needs to stop being a baby about this and saying "BUT THEY BROKE THE LAW WAA WAA WAA"
Oh I agree, it's clearly childish to demand that people obey the law. I guess judges should start telling rape victims to stop being such babies, all their rapists did was break the law.

If it was your family member whose soldier funeral was being picketed you would not be taking your moral/constitutional high ground, and would be calling for more than a couple parked cars.
Well, I daresay that if someone in my family died fighting to protect the rights guaranteed to us by the constitution I would be very pissed off if at his funeral people made an effort to deny others those same rights.

The primary point of the first amendment was so that the citizens are not allowed to be silenced for criticizing the government, not protecting a couple people with universally opposed views.
Nope, sorry this is just completely incorrect. The first amendment says nothing whatsoever about discriminating between forms of speech. In fact, even if the WBC didn't plan to say anything the actions of the corrupt officers of Rankin county would still be infringing on their right to peacefully assemble.

This is not comparable to civil rights or womens rights where it is ethically obvious oppression. Nobody in 50 years is going to be looking back and saying "Wow I can't believe we didn't let these lunatics protest funerals, how wrong we were."
It was only seen to be obvious oppression with the benefit of hindsight. Many reputable "scientific" institutions at the time held the belief that women and black people were, by their nature, inferior to white males. It was thought that they were simply too stupid to be trusted with important decisions (such as voting.) Most people believed that the government's actions were no more oppressive than having a responsible adult babysit and make decisions for a mentally-handicapped person.

If, in the hypothetical future, we find ourselves in an Orwellian dystopia wherein the right to the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly no longer exist then we might look back and see that the time when we decided to restrict the speech of a few assholes because we didn't like what they were saying was the time when it all started to go wrong.

Everyone needs to grow a pair and realize that getting a little beating (he was fine enough to be questioned by the police about who was assaulting him, so he couldn't have been that injured in the first place) or having your car blocked is not the worst thing that can happen to you.
Alright everyone, it's official, as long as a beating does not send you into a coma you're perfectly fine and have no right to complain. After all, it's not the worst thing that could happen. If someone robs your house, just be thankful that they didn't decide to burn it down as well and keep your chin up.

People in other countries get beaten for far less and you're worried about the well being of a random morally bankrupt pariah?
Yeah guys, haven't you heard, people in some other countries have it worse than we do. Therefore we have no right to complain about the beating of a person. After all, he wasn't even a nice guy, and that means that he should be brutally assaulted because it's a crime not to be nice.

*bzzzzzzfssssssht*

Damn, that last paragraph just broke my sarcasmotron.

Let me conclude with a question to all of you people in this thread supporting Rankin County:

Would you still support the police if they were preventing people from dishonoring the soldiers in the middle east by protesting the wars there?
Well if thats the case then you must go and tell the police about every single traffic violation you've ever committed and pay your five million dollars in speeding tickets.

See my previous post about if it was your family member who died.

Hindsight was exactly what i was talking about, we are NEVER going to look back and think, that WBC and their 72 members were right. Please read carefully.

The first amendment's *****PRIMARY***** purpose was that we can speak out against the government. Remember who wrote this stuff, people who just got out of a monarchy where they might be killed for speaking against the king. You think they would hesitate to murder people like WBC if they protested the dead colonist soldiers in General Washington's army (a massive celebrity at the time) during the American Revolution?

As for the beating, yes it is ok, he did not die. Tell me, were you ever punished when you were a kid, or were you sent to your room to think about what youve done? Grow up, there is violence in the world, and this is hardly the situation to be defending this guy. And it is not like being beaten during a store robbery or a mugging, there you are within your rights to be defended, as you did nothing wrong. Don't poke a grizzly bear and cry for pity when it mauls your ass.