Page 56 of 215 FirstFirst ... 6 46 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 66 106 156 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 2150

Thread: Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

  1. #551
    Grandmaster

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty View Post
    But otherwise unarmed......
    So, is "otherwise unarmed" the new "mostly peaceful"?
    Censorship is to society what cancer is to the body.

  2. #552
    KG1
    KG1 is offline
    Grandmaster

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ditcherman View Post
    We know the cops were called on a domestic, my impression was that he was a third party.
    Nonetheless, WI law requires that when a domestic is called in, someone gets hauled in, no matter what.

    I’ll go back and look at the last video when I have time.

    Concerning the kids stance, I believe he is not so much a supporter but sympathetic to BLM, and that stopped at property damage. In other words, he and his buddies organized to protect property. You can see this indication on one of the early clips, more of an interview type.

    I will speculate that he sorted out the property damage ringleader and attempted to take him out.
    Speculation can also be made that the kid was attempting to disengage himself from the situation and the red shirt “ringleader” pursued him. The video appears to show that the red shirt guy was chasing after the kid and trying to incite the mob into harming the individual.

  3. #553
    Grandmaster Thor's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    What a fine and upstanding group of people who deserved to be shot.
    Thor himself has spoken, mere mortals must make it so. - bradmedic04

  4. #554
    Grandmaster Expat's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Phase2 View Post
    So, is "otherwise unarmed" the new "mostly peaceful"?
    I am sorry if this was already covered (I can't keep up with some of these giant threads), so what was the curved dark thing shown in the video?

  5. #555
    Master

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatin Since 87 View Post
    My only issue would be shooting him as he’s retreating with his back turned with a knife. I support the cops and i guess it’s justified but I don’t understand why if I did the same thing I’d likely be in prison.
    Maybe because it's not your job to pursue a dangerous person? It's your job to back off. Now if he did say he was getting a gun and he was already attacking you then you might have an argument. But I agree I wouldn't want to have to prove that.

  6. #556
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpo View Post
    I need a LEO to explain this, methinks. Blake is tased and gets up from tasing (pretty much what I stated I saw in the video back when). He doesn't have a knife in his hand, since the knife is in the car, according to the investigators.

    So, as a cop, are you going to put yourself within the reach of a hand with a knife, or are you going to open the distance and await further action on the part of Blake?

    I know this is 20/20 hindsight, but my reaction would have been to back off while covering him.

    Please advise.
    The problem is - you don't know what weapon he has or is going to go get. Sure, if you 100% KNOW it is a knife, you might just back off and keep your gun aimed and ready, but what if he said/implied he had a 'knife' but what he grabs is a pistol...? Criminals, especially ones acting violently and irrationally, sometimes don't tell the truth....

  7. #557
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    Kid was a pro-Police, rally attending Trumper. Doubtful he had BLM sympathies. Still, I respect his right to be where he was, and defend himself. Even if being there was an order or magnitude up there on the stupid scale.
    I had a discussion argument with my son about this. His point was that the kid crossed state lines with an AR intentionally entering into a riot zone. That, he was obviously there to fight and should therefore be charged with murder. My position is that it was foolish to take it upon himself to go there and try to be the peace keeper. It's not as obvious that he was there to pick a fight as there are other alternative reasons. For example, he wanted to be there to represent the other side of it, and since there would be violence, bring his AR along for protection. I think that's foolish, because he intentionally put himself into a position where it was likely he'd have to use it. If you're on the BLM side and armed, you're not likely to need to use it. If you're on the opposite side, there is no doubt. They're coming for you. I've avoided the downtown area in Louisville altogether for that reason. I'd be armed anyway, and I know the odds are much higher that I'd need to defend myself.

    But as you say, he has a right to be there to protest as much as anyone else, AND to bring his AR with him, just like the protesters on the BLM side do. The people trying to kill him didn't have to try to kill him. They had a choice in the transaction as well. I'd say they even more responsibility for their foolishness because they initiated the violence. So I see it as a clash of fools, which often ends with some dead fools and some fools still standing afterwards, in this case, the more justified fool.

    That said, the violence those rioters would have caused otherwise didn't happen because of his actions. They tried to kill him, so there is no doubt that killing people was on the table. If he weren't there, what violence would they have brought upon someone who couldn't defend themselves.
    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.

  8. #558
    Master

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jamil View Post
    I had a discussion argument with my son about this. His point was that the kid crossed state lines with an AR intentionally entering into a riot zone. That, he was obviously there to fight and should therefore be charged with murder.
    I've had a similar discussion with people.

    If that kid is automatically a murderer for entering the riot zone, then by extension every person who enters an after-curfew protest area loses the right of self defense. Get raped and had to stab your attacker? Too bad, shouldn't have been there and you just have to take it.

  9. #559
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Here's Mike the Cop's take. A few days old but much is relevant.

    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.

  10. #560
    Grandmaster jamil's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by dusty88 View Post
    I've had a similar discussion with people.

    If that kid is automatically a murderer for entering the riot zone, then by extension every person who enters an after-curfew protest area loses the right of self defense. Get raped and had to stab your attacker? Too bad, shouldn't have been there and you just have to take it.
    Exactly. The kid had as much right to be there as any of the BLM folks WHO BROUGHT THEIR FIREARMS too. We can talk about the foolishness of putting yourself in that position. But anywhere you have a right to be, notwithstanding the wisdom or foolishness of being there, you also have a right to be armed and protect yourself. I'm not sure my son understood that yet. I think the thinks of himself as fairly libertarian, and so he kinda shares the elements of distrust of police; not in a "sovereign citizen" sort of way. But he does seem eager to focus on the bad elements in policing more than the good. But because of his libertarian streak, I think I should introduce him to the principle of Initiation of Force standard. Perhaps that it's a "libertarian" principle, his side-taking might open him to that principle, which I think is generally good.
    I have spoken.
    If you’re woke you dig it.

Page 56 of 215 FirstFirst ... 6 46 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 66 106 156 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •