You mean like the Bernie Bro who tried to kill 25 GOP congressmen? Shook Chicken already established he doesn’t give a shit. Probably applauded the effort
Here we go again
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
You mean like the Bernie Bro who tried to kill 25 GOP congressmen? Shook Chicken already established he doesn’t give a shit. Probably applauded the effort
If uniformed police officers can take a Black person's life without any ramifications, what's it going to take to get your attention?
Well, no one can complain about NBA players taking a knee for the National Anthem tonight!
"Three witnesses told Heavy that the original shooter was a person in a helmet and bulletproof vest and wasn’t the same man being chased."
1st degree murder isn't going to stick if he wasn't the original shooter. The 2nd two shootings were in self defense. I wouldnt be surprised if they end up dropping the charges.
Trump wanted to have 750 national guard troops there but the mayor only wanted 250. Whoops.
No one had to die. The kid could have stayed home. Instead he went to an area where people were angry about another death at the hands of police and not only ruined his own life but took two others.
Yeah, it drew violence all the way from a State away from a 17 year old kid.
Is it still self defense if you cross state lines with a gun for the sole reason to instigate violence and then shoot and kill people when you are successful at drumming up violence?
If he went there ready to kill someone and was also breaking curfew then why not?
Not at this point in my life. I’ve worked hard to be able to have things and the security to replace them. But I can certainly understand someone wanting to protect their property with their lives. I felt that way at some point in my life when we had very little. It’s an awful privileged place to come from when you can’t see that position.
He didn't even live there dipshit. He drove in to break curfew and kill some protesters. Trump chuds dont have to insert themselves illegally into a curfew area and kill people to protect empty buildings from burning. They are not the police and they are not protecting their buildings their property or their town and in this case even their own state.
Its a curfew bud. No one should have been there. I dont have to prove anything.
I'm assuming the guys that assaulted him should be charged with something as well then.
also worth noting that he was breaking the law as well because he was not old enough for open carry.
There's some gray area there. Yeah, he was probably guilty of a misdemeanor on this one but could probably argue his way out of it.
The most I've learned ab this has been the last cpl pages.
17 year old crosses state lines, breaks curfew and was illegally open carrying? Are these the facts?
I've seen the argument about black men needing to comply with LE when stopped and questioned. How simply doing this would prevent escalation of conflict.
I'm not saying this kid had no right to counterprotest but is this not similar territory? If he stayed at home and cleaned his gun instead would there not be different outcomes?
Was his his action anymore reasonable than someone else feeling like they're unjustly being harassed?
And I understand the argument about complying, I really do. It's probably the calculation I would make. Someone with "nothing to lose" might have a different take.
I just keep reading that actions = outcomes.
17 year old crosses state lines, breaks curfew and was illegally open carrying? Are these the facts?
I've seen the argument about black men needing to comply with LE when stopped and questioned. How simply doing this would prevent escalation of conflict.
I'm not saying this kid had no right to counterprotest but is this not similar territory? If he stayed at home and cleaned his gun instead would there not be different outcomes?
Was his his action anymore reasonable than someone else feeling like they're unjustly being harassed?
And I understand the argument about complying, I really do. It's probably the calculation I would make. Someone with "nothing to lose" might have a different take.
I just keep reading that actions = outcomes.
I agree with all you’ve said. Again, I still haven’t made the time to watch the videos and read all of the articles. But someone’s reaction to the situation plays a role. Someone walking down a street and someone lawfully carrying a weapon both have the same rights to do so. If the person walking down the street decides to fight with police and reach for their gun, then that is a tragic decision with very small likelihood of a deadly turnout (People resist with force all the time and police restrain them all the time and no one is injured). If the guy with the gun, when confronted with the possibility of violence flees rather than fights, then he has made a decision to avoid violence (fulfilled his duty to retreat) and so should be treated differently (assuming of course that all of the legal facets were met for him to be carrying a weapon and a whole swath of others).
It’s complicated, though, and that’s why we have a court system and why the wheels of justice turn slowly. Because we need to get it right. Whatever the outcome is in either situation, we need to take the time to get it right and not bow down to the pressures of emotional “justice.”
