Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Destino said:

What kind of knife was it?

Honestly does it matter? He was either reaching for a weapon to go after the police or he wasn’t. And we’re not going to know definitively either way so we’re going to have to guess based on best available info :(

 

type of knife doesn’t really matter does it?

9 minutes ago, Destino said:

Neither requires seven shots in the back

Retired law enforcement that’s always pro cop went through the whole “he was reaching in the car” defense with me but even he ended it with “... I don’t know about shooting him seven times in the back though...”

 

Side note: always hard to prove self defense when you shoot dude in the back. Just hard to say you were in fear of your life from the dude that has his back to you. Reaching for things screws that up... just does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
abdcskins

abdcskins

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Koala said:

Why is it soo important for you to find some blame in the victim?  Its a rhetorical question for you, that most of us already suspect we know the answer to.  

 

It says a lot about someone to see the tape, know the consequences to Blake and all the fallout, and still come out and basically just be like, "But wait, wait, I just wanna make sure that we all agree on one thing -- justice must ensure that Mr.  Blake is at least charged for failure to comply with a lawful order.  Thats all I care about...". 

 

I know thats not exactly what you said, but do you have any idea how incredibly grotesque you look, when you focus on the victim's' imperfections?  Stop, just stop.  Seriously, I advise you, just stop.  it makes you look like the guy who says, "Im not saying she deserved to be raped nearly to death, but can we all at least agree her blouse was a bit revealing?  Hmmm?"  

 

Rather than respond to your entire post, I will just say your comparison of a woman being raped is not even close to being an appropriate analogy. 

 

The only reason I ever brought it up in the first place was to point out the dichotomous thinking that most people have regarding situations like this. You seem to be one of them. I stated in my first post that the police used excessive force and are completely in the wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted

So what I gather about the timeline of events of the child gunner is...

1. He's out with all his other pretend military "protecting" the property.

2. There's some sort of altercation that isn't necessarily filmed. Child gunner shoot and kills a person.

3. Child gunner flees, while also calling someone to tell them that he shot somebody.

4. Group of people try to apprehend the child gunner... because he shot someone with his military weapon.

5. Child gunner then shoots MORE people.

6. Child gunner then walks RIGHT PAST the police with his hands raised carrying his military weapon.

 

Conservatives think that THIS is self defense?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

So what I gather about the timeline of events of the child gunner is...

1. He's out with all his other pretend military "protecting" the property.

2. There's some sort of altercation that isn't necessarily filmed. Child gunner shoot and kills a person.

3. Child gunner flees, while also calling someone to tell them that he shot somebody.

4. Group of people try to apprehend the child gunner... because he shot someone with his military weapon.

5. Child gunner then shoots MORE people.

6. Child gunner then walks RIGHT PAST the police with his hands raised carrying his military weapon.

 

Conservatives think that THIS is self defense?

 

 

I think the timeline being given by conservatives is:

 

1. Young man bravely volunteers to protect businesses during the "protests" which is really nothing but rioters and looters

2. "Protesters" start harassing him and chasing him--for no other reason than he's white probably--with at least one of the chasers carrying a gun

3. Heroic young man fires on chaser with a gun (and probably with a record of crimes like car jacking and rape, I mean, lets face facts people) to protect himself and others

4. Other "protesters" see this and run after him to kill him on a public street, and the brave young man falls down while running

5. With several black BLM "protesters" ready to dismantle this courageous young American male with machetes, he defends himself against a snarling mob intent to kill him (because that's what the crime stats suggest would probably happen, let's face facts people)

6. Two "protesters" are shot, with one ending up dead (good riddance)

7. The law-abiding 17 year old then walks towards the police with his hands up, indicating he respects our boys in blue and will comply with any orders they give him--which turns out to be none because the cops let him walk on by without any concern...they knew that the strong young male did not do anything wrong he just stood up for 'Merica, got-dammit, and when that becomes a crime lock me up

8. Cops end up caving in to PC culture and are forced to arrest this poor, brave young soul simply because he wanted to do his part to guarantee peace and law and order for his fellow citizens

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted

Like, obviously the kid is at fault. But really, he's a kid. WE are at fault. For breeding a society that somehow has no ****ing problem sending a 17 year old into a protest armed with a weapon of war. For programming parents to think it's somehow OK to arm your child and send them off like this. What the **** kind of world are we making?

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
  • Author
Posted
i made a post yesterday about being conscious of the reality that the shooting of blake and the actions of the 17 yo shooter will continue play out facts/spin-wise over time, and the inevitable course of the evidence and analysis taking time to evolve and get all the loose stuff tight
 
that's not becuase i think there's that much to doubt about the basic culpability of each party and how the individual transgressions are not all 'equal' or legally justified with each actor involved in both matters, even at this time
 
it's becuase the game of arguing your pov using specific details that may soon get muddied, or shown to be misleading or erroneous, undermines the position taken even if it's still fundamentally valid overall and who wants even a marginally weakened stance? :) 
 
 
to that point, this morning smerconish interviewed a times journalist from a team of reporters focused solely on assimilating all the existing video and audio evidence on the 17 yo's actions, specifically and all those who interacted with him during his time there, cops and civilians (very good stuff)
 
and they show a lot that supports what most of us think from what we've seen already, as the 17 yo basically being a 'bad guy', but there is enough other stuff to keep this from being some glaringly obvious slam dunk in court or even in the broad media arena...there are a number of things that will need to be sorted in seeking all the facts and many details will get exaggerated or  misrepresented by humans in highly emotional and very serious opposition with each other
 
some work will have to be done to prosecute the case on the 17 yo, given a highly skilled attorney already has enough to make a play to the camera and public opinion as much as to a judge.... having some kind of grounds for a public campaign to make the guy a 'hero' or poster-boy (hitler youth?) or at least a sympathetic and 'innocent' person, is a big goal for the right wing here
 
at this point i still see the 17 yo as fully culpable myself, but you will see all these details argued over and amplified...i plan to judge them all on merit, naturally, tho i acknowledge my bottom line on 'things that are the most wrong in our society when it comes to racism' remains as it has been...logically/rationally and emotionally
 
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Springfield said:

Like, obviously the kid is at fault. But really, he's a kid. WE are at fault. For breeding a society that somehow has no ****ing problem sending a 17 year old into a protest armed with a weapon of war. For programming parents to think it's somehow OK to arm your child and send them off like this. What the **** kind of world are we making?

 

Something tells me that you'll be a better parent. 

That's the start we need. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
purbeast

purbeast

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, sportjunkie07 said:

Defending people and property.. check.

Offering ems help... check.

Successfully defending himself from mutiple attacks and cleaning up the garbage rioting in our cities.. check. 

Doing these needed things when everyone else is scared to.. check. 

 

Sounds like a hero to me.

 

I don't know if he is a white supremacist but regardless his actions were commendable here. 

Real talk...

 

This is probably EB from The Sports Junkies.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Springfield said:

So what I gather about the timeline of events of the child gunner is...

1. He's out with all his other pretend military "protecting" the property.

2. There's some sort of altercation that isn't necessarily filmed. Child gunner shoot and kills a person.

3. Child gunner flees, while also calling someone to tell them that he shot somebody.

4. Group of people try to apprehend the child gunner... because he shot someone with his military weapon.

5. Child gunner then shoots MORE people.

6. Child gunner then walks RIGHT PAST the police with his hands raised carrying his military weapon.

 

Conservatives think that THIS is self defense?

There’s definitely a case to be made for self defense, assuming that his having an illegal gun doesn’t preclude him from arguing self defense entirely.  No one has said that it does.  
 

The first thing is that every shooting was caught on camera and in all instances Kyle is running from his attackers prior to shooting anyone.  It’s tough to paint him as a deranged mass shooter out for blood when this is the case.  I don’t think this is a minor detail that can easily be dismissed.
 

Everyone is quick to say he brought a gun!  Well that alone doesn't mean anything in the US.  People walk around armed here and there has been no shortage of openly armed protests across the country.  Having a firearm alone, is not instigating.  Also, the people he shot appear to be rioters, which essentially means criminals in the act of committing crimes.  They have no right to do this unbothered.  
 

What it comes down to IMO is proving there was, or was not, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.  Especially in that first shooting.  If that first shooting is self defense, the other two are easily argued the same.  If the first is not, than none of them are.  This comes down to how talented the prosecutors and defense attorneys are, and the mindset of the jury.  
 

The video evidence I’ve seen so far helps the defense in this case, but prosecutors might dig up something that shows he wanted to shoot people that night.  Something we haven’t seen yet that establishes a motive.  We also don’t see what set off the first incident, there may be witnesses that can speak to that.

Personally, I think Kyle seems shady as hell. Something about him strike me as a performance.  A lie.  He was playing up the hero routine while looking for trouble.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Destino said:

Everyone is quick to say he brought a gun!  Well that alone doesn't mean anything in the US.  People walk around armed here and there has been no shortage of openly armed protests across the country.  Having a firearm alone, is not instigating.  Also, the people he shot appear to be rioters, which essentially means criminals in the act of committing crimes.  They have no right to do this unbothered.

He was also engaged in multiple crimes (with the help of the police, who need to be charged for their involvement), so I guess by the same logic it's ok if someone killed him and the police who encouraged and aided his behavior?

Edited by visionary
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Destino said:

There’s definitely a case to be made for self defense, assuming that his having an illegal gun doesn’t preclude him from arguing self defense entirely.  No one has said that it does.  
 

The first thing is that every shooting was caught on camera and in all instances Kyle is running from his attackers prior to shooting anyone.  It’s tough to paint him as a deranged mass shooter out for blood when this is the case.  I don’t think this is a minor detail that can easily be dismissed.
 

Everyone is quick to say he brought a gun!  Well that alone doesn't mean anything in the US.  People walk around armed here and there has been no shortage of openly armed protests across the country.  Having a firearm alone, is not instigating.  Also, the people he shot appear to be rioters, which essentially means criminals in the act of committing crimes.  They have no right to do this unbothered.  
 

What it comes down to IMO is proving there was, or was not, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.  Especially in that first shooting.  If that first shooting is self defense, the other two are easily argued the same.  If the first is not, than none of them are.  This comes down to how talented the prosecutors and defense attorneys are, and the mindset of the jury.  
 

The video evidence I’ve seen so far helps the defense in this case, but prosecutors might dig up something that shows he wanted to shoot people that night.  Something we haven’t seen yet that establishes a motive.  We also don’t see what set off the first incident, there may be witnesses that can speak to that.

Personally, I think Kyle seems shady as hell. Something about him strike me as a performance.  A lie.  He was playing up the hero routine while looking for trouble.

 


From what I gather reading and watching (Wapo, NY Times, Buzzfeed) the first incident happened without being blatantly captured. Granted I haven’t searched every single video out because I’m frankly tired of watching people die.

 

So it would seem to me that this kid shot someone, and nobody really knows why. Could have been self defense, could have been aggression, could have been him protecting a business.

 

After that, he’s now a person who’s shot and possibly killed a person. Why wouldn’t they (the rioters) chase him down and apprehend him? The second and third shootings shouldn’t be self defense in my book. What are we taught in active shooter scenarios? Run, hide, fight. Well they fought. The people chasing that boy, who just killed a man were acting in their own self defense.

 

Also, it should be illegal for a minor to carry a weapon like that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...