Kenosha shooting

[Lyubov]

8 minutes ago, Tetcher said:

If you were speaking the truth then why after he shot and missed the first guy, shot and hit the second guy the third guy still tried to jump on him?

Life is not always as theoretical as you think it is from the comfort of your chair, the shooter fell while being chased by an angry mob and had to defend himself, he didn't control the situation like some kind of god, he didn't know the situation would evolve like that when he decided to come there, his decision making happened as the situation unfolded.

 

 

He was being chased by an angry mob because he is an aggressive radical playing police officer. You do realize if this wasn't a white kid but instead a black guy or a muslim right wingers would be labeling this angry mob heros? 

What are you even talking about dude? If he didn't know the situation wasn't going to turn out like that he wouldn't have brought a firearm. He clearly was prepared for violence. He literally was the one to confront them originally with his presence. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_homicide?wprov=sfla1

He is guilty of reckless homicide as well as reckless use of a firearm and illegal posestion of one. He broke several laws. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Lyubov

[Tetcher]

8 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

He is guilty of reckless homicide as well as reckless use of a firearm and illegal posestion of one. He broke several laws. 

Thank you for your feedback Mister judge, Jury and Executioner. What about the angry mob, did they break several laws by assaulting him or by burning the part of the city down in the first place? If the shooter shouldn't have been here in the first place, should the rioters been there in the first place?

Edited August 28, 2020 by Tetcher

[Lyubov]

4 minutes ago, Tetcher said:

Thank you for your feedback Mister judge, Jury and Executioner. What about the angry mob, did they break several laws by assaulting him or by burning the part of the city down in the first place? If the shooter shouldn't have been here in the first place, should the rioters been there in the first place?

Stop mixing in your BS. Even if they were rioting that doesn't mean ordinary citizens can go out and put themselves in situations where they can shoot them. He wasn't defending his own property either. This is why we have "reckless intent" laws, so radicals like this kid are held accountable for these very situations. If he did not have that rifle but was still there I can tell you that no one would of died. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Lyubov

[Arcangelo]

1 hour ago, Tetcher said:

If you were speaking the truth then why after he shot and missed the first guy, shot and hit the second guy the third guy still tried to jump on him?

True. You got a solid point here.

[Arcangelo]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

You don't get to put yourself into a position where you kill someone for retaliating against you for being aggressive in the first place.

He wasn't aggressive in the first place. The angry mob was. You are way too biased. You are not being objective.

[Lyubov]

4 minutes ago, Arcangelo said:

He wasn't aggressive in the first place. The angry mob was. You are way too biased. You are not being objective.

Carrying an assault rifle into a situation where you have appointed yourself as a police officer is aggressive. I am being objective. He committed reckless homicide in the state of Wisconsin . 

[Arcangelo]

1 hour ago, Tetcher said:

If you were speaking the truth then why after he shot and missed the first guy, shot and hit the second guy the third guy still tried to jump on him?

True. You got a solid point here. But still, the first thing he needed to do was warning shots, then if the warning shots don't work, then yeah it is a them or me situation.

I personally know a guy that got shot by a warning shot. The shooter shot at the ground but the bullet bounced and hit him in the leg. This same guy later in life the one that got shot, set his own property on fire with people inside. He didn't kill them, but he went to jail for that.

[Arcangelo]

6 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Carrying an assault rifle into a situation where you have appointed yourself as a police officer is aggressive.

89% - 98% True.

The craziest thing is the police supporting this guys, telling them thank you more than once, giving them water and shit. 

It is just common sense: the less guns the better in a situation like this.

[Consept]

I was just thinking, in a weird way this is parrallell to Ahmed Arbery case in that a group of people (smaller in this case) thought someone was doing something wrong, apprehended him and ended up shooting him dead in the process. Obviously it's different in that Arbery wasn't looking for trouble and wasn't armed, however a lot of people including the police thought it was justified as well as people probably defending the kenosha shooting. 

Using that as an example wouldn't the protesters be more than justified in trying to apprehend this kid given that from their perspective he had already shot someone, was carrying a lethal weapon and was running away (just as Arbery was)? 

[AtheisticNonduality]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The entire notion of these militia groups is absurd. State must have a monopoly on carrying firearms in the city streets and law enforcement.

God = Hitler?

[Zega]

4 hours ago, Arcangelo said:

He wasn't aggressive in the first place. The angry mob was. You are way too biased. You are not being objective.

I have to disagree. Bringing an assault rifle to a serious protest is, by itself, aggressive. It's one thing if the military or police do it, but these bullshit militia groups? 

What did he think was going to happen when he was toting a gun around in that situation? 

He knew

[Rajneeshpuram]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I see a trigger-happy jackass teen playing macho vigilante near a serious protest, and naturally hell breaks loose.

This is why in a sane society one should not be allowed to open-carry assault rifles near large crowds of people.

The entire notion of these militia groups is absurd. State must have a monopoly on carrying firearms in the city streets and law enforcement.

Citizens cannot be allowed to do law enforcement. Especially angsty 17 year olds with a political agenda. Law enforcement is hard enough as it is for trained professionals.

You are misinformed Leo. The police forces abandoned the civilians in the riots, they just didnt wanted to take action. So civilians had to defend themselves and their houses, business and cars. It seems the black community interpret protests as if it was a "loot festival" when destroying burning and looting is allowed!

The kid you named as the macho jackas was a teenage firefighters volunteer that wanted to defend his community. And the antifa mob started the gression.

I apreciate you and I dont know if you are being informed by the wrong media sources or its genuinely you suport anarchism and the antifa movement.

[VerballyHazardous]

1 hour ago, Rajneeshpuram said:

...or its genuinely you suport anarchism and the antifa movement.

Leo hates liberals/anarchists

[AtheisticNonduality]

15 minutes ago, VerballyHazardous said:

Leo hates liberals/anarchists

You mean right-wing libertarians?

[Roy]

This case is the perfect example of the absurd depths of bad faith and ignorance people are willing to go to in the political divide while being totally unconscious of the fact they are participating in it.

Should a 17 year old have deliberately traveled to a volatile protest with a gun? NO, obviously that was an extremely poor decision and he should not have been there, despite whatever good intentions he displayed in the videos prior to the shootings. Let the buildings burn and have legitimate authorities like emergency response deal with it. He was clearly out of his lane, just like many of the protesters that want to abuse the opportunity of these riots/protests to get away with criminal juvenile behavior and hide behind the good people trying to spark genuine change. 

However he absolutely is justified in defending himself from charging attackers carrying weapons or not if he is trying to escape and retreat from the situations as it clearly appears he was doing in the available videos.

It's not like any of this should have been a surprise, he is openly carrying a large gun on his body in plain sight. Anyone who sees that and is still willing to attack him should be assumed to be willing to escalate the force against him to equal or greater than what his weapon is capable of. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

His vested interest was clearly in survival like anyone else's would have been if they were in his shoes. To say he should have submitted himself to an angry armed mob out of some appeal to higher virtues is fucking absurd. Anybody who actually thinks they would override their survival instincts and do the opposite of what he did in that situation is either being dishonest or massively overestimating themselves. It's just easy to say because you're in the safety vacuum of being behind a screen. If you actually would do it I guess have fun being beaten close to death or executed by the mob pussy???

There is no other way to interpret this situation given all the evidence. It's just stupidity in every direction from all parties involved and a shitty set of circumstances, once again fueled by rampantly incompetent police. What's making it even worse is the inability of so many to be impartial and honest about these events, it just adds gasoline to the fire because everyone is so scared to think for themselves and wants to be nestled in the comfortable and delusional warmth of doubling down on one side of the isle or the other.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Roy

[VerballyHazardous]

@AtheisticNonduality

47 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

You mean right-wing libertarians?

Yeah, i don't think Leo would support that type of libertarians, but Leo also don't support anarchism, anti-govenment type.

[AtheisticNonduality]

Vaush and Destiny were both really bad in that debate.

[Consept]

24 minutes ago, Roy said:

There is no other way to interpret this situation given all the evidence. It's just stupidity in every direction from all parties involved and a shitty set of circumstances, once again fueled by rampantly incompetent police. What's making it even worse is the inability of so many to be impartial and honest about these events, it just adds gasoline to the fire because everyone is so scared to think for themselves and wants to be nestled in the comfortable and delusional warmth of doubling down on one side of the isle or the other.

I agree with you in that yeah obviously if hes getting attacked and has a big gun on him, hes probably gonna use it, i mean thats why he brought it in the first place. But if you look at it from at least the second lot of people that attacked hims perspective, theyve heard or seen theres this kid with a rifle whos just shot someone, for all they know this could be a kid who hates black people trying to shoot up the place as has happened before with people like dylan roof. Either way you wouldnt want to take any chances, the police definitely wouldnt take any chances if they saw or heard someone just shot someone, so its not unreasonable that they would attack him, i dont know what else they couldve done. From his side he doesnt know that so yeah he would defend himself. But this is obviously the issue with having a 17 year old with a rifle police a riot, its completely ridiculous, of course this sort of thing would happen.

In fact any militia policing the streets is really absurd as they would no doubt have bias and not enough training, its hard enough with the police training and bias let alone random people who could be completely racist or emotional or whatever.  

[Arcangelo]

All lives matter.

Who feels offended by this?

[VerballyHazardous]

@Arcangelo

Depends on context:

If you said that randomly, most people wouldn't feel offended by that statement. Obviously, both white and black people matter.

If you said that while reacting negatively to people fighting against systematic racism or people pointing out where black people are being treated unfairly, then you are either offended by BLM or a racist.

One statement, widely agreed to be true, but if used in different circumstances can have completely different meanings.

Edited August 28, 2020 by VerballyHazardous