Lyubov

Right Wing News Media Stoops to New Low: Defends 17yo Shooter

77 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Extreme Z7 said:

By that logic, if you walk into a bank holding a gun and the cops pull their firearms on you. That makes you justified to shoot at them because hey. . .it was self-defense!

It wasn't a bank.  BLM was mad about a fire getting extinguished at a petrol station:

1. https://old.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/igsx41/crowd_gets_angry_after_gas_station_defenders/

2. https://streamable.com/jr77o6#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone would feel threatened if some 17 year old came into their area from some other state and started walking around with a rifle, i can get defending your own property but this is such a stretch. 

1 hour ago, purerogue said:

Would it change anything if he would be 18-21 besides point of law? 

It wouldnt make too much difference i think the idea of vigilantism is just going to cause more problems than it solves any way. But in this case its illegal for him to be carrying the gun in the first place so yeah it does make a difference that hes 17. 

The other point is that obviously this has escalated the tension that was already there so i dont see how this can be condoned, if someone was walking around your area with a gun youd feel very threatened. 

Regardless whatever people decide here the courts will ultimately decide his fate and in a way i feel empathy for him because he'll probably get quite a sever sentence and its specifically to do with people like Trumps rhetoric and the ongoing sentiment thats been going round, he has been radicalised and the this is the result of that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Consept said:

I think anyone would feel threatened if some 17 year old came into their area from some other state and started walking around with a rifle, i can get defending your own property but this is such a stretch. 

It wouldnt make too much difference i think the idea of vigilantism is just going to cause more problems than it solves any way. But in this case its illegal for him to be carrying the gun in the first place so yeah it does make a difference that hes 17. 

The other point is that obviously this has escalated the tension that was already there so i dont see how this can be condoned, if someone was walking around your area with a gun youd feel very threatened. 

Regardless whatever people decide here the courts will ultimately decide his fate and in a way i feel empathy for him because he'll probably get quite a sever sentence and its specifically to do with people like Trumps rhetoric and the ongoing sentiment thats been going round, he has been radicalised and the this is the result of that

Ideally the cops would do their job and don't allow lawlessness and violent riots. Seems to be to idealistic and utopian nowadays. If  cops don't do it people may do it.

 

Edited by Epikur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Consept

1 minute ago, Consept said:

I think anyone would feel threatened if some 17 year old came into their area from some other state and started walking around with a rifle, i can get defending your own property but this is such a stretch.

He lived like 15-30 minutes away because this happened right near the border.  And they were mad because of a fire getting extinguished at a petrol station

1. https://old.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/igsx41/crowd_gets_angry_after_gas_station_defenders/

2. https://streamable.com/jr77o6#

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

@Consept

He lived like 15-30 minutes away because this happened right near the border.  And they were mad because of a fire getting extinguished at a petrol station

1. https://old.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/igsx41/crowd_gets_angry_after_gas_station_defenders/

2. https://streamable.com/jr77o6#

 

Does not even matter, they are just trying to find some silly reason of "what if" "how would you feel" as if they know if thous people were from that area, or if they knew that he is from different place, they fell treated so it is k to attack, just common defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Consept said:

So imagine this guy at a trump rally who was attacked legally had a gun and shot a couple people because he was attacked, would that be justified? 

 

 

No because he didn't defend property and lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Ego/anger is okay as long as you know you are not it.  Seeing terrorist sympathizers here is sad.

You mean terrorism like attacking people who extinguished a fire at a petrol station lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Epikur said:

No because he didn't defend property and lives.

OK i get it so if youre defending property its ok to murder, so say if theres riots when a football team wins as in the video below, it would be justified to go there to defend property and if anyone attacks me i can kill them? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you kill someone, you should expect to be attacked.  Once again, you don't have the right to self-defense.  The people attacking you for being a murderous terrorist have a right to self-defense. This is a very clear cut issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AtheisticNonduality said:

If you kill someone, you should expect to be attacked.  Once again, you don't have the right to self-defense.  The people attacking you for being a murderous terrorist have a right to self-defense. This is a very clear cut issue.

@Consept Are you suggesting he should have let a stage red wigger have his violent way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Consept said:

OK i get it so if youre defending property its ok to murder, so say if theres riots when a football team wins as in the video below, it would be justified to go there to defend property and if anyone attacks me i can kill them? 

 

Depends on the level of violence of the rioters. The riots in our case proved to be quite violent:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

If you kill someone, you should expect to be attacked.  Once again, you don't have the right to self-defense.  The people attacking you for being a murderous terrorist have a right to self-defense. This is a very clear cut issue.

Depends on the situation. If you get attacked and kill it's a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Depends on the level of violence of the rioters

Lets say theyre pretty violent, they damage a lot of property, have fights etc, of course if youre going to defend you dont know exactly how violent they are until you get there. Should people go to football riots armed to protect property and then kill people if they too are attacked? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Once again, you don't have the right to self-defense.

Doesn't really matter what side you're on in this issue, this is a hilarious non-statement.

There is no such thing as a "right" to self-defense, it doesn't exist as something to be handed or given.

People are going to defend themselves regardless in any situation, because we all have the exact same modus operandi;

Survival.

This is more fundamental than any context, morals, or laws that you think will or "should" influence a situation.


hrhrhtewgfegege

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

@Consept Are you suggesting he should have let a stage red wigger have his violent way?

This is disgusting, racist terminology


“All you need is Love” - John Lennon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.