Terrorist attack in Minnesota!

[loveofourlord]

what I want to know is, where were the cops in all this? Guys in masks show up to a protest and nothing happens, then people get shot and it reportedly takes nearly half a hour for the cops to respond a couple of blocks from their own precint.

And anyone else at the point where I don't believe the cops story at all of the shooting, it's just getting rediculouse and legitimate shootings are going to get lumped in with the bad shootings because the cops have shown their true colours time and time again, their response to these protests isn't to put camera's on cops, or do anything to stop these or to protect the cops from protests, it's to threaten and attack the protestors, to the point where they are telling guys like Taritino that they are going to get him *financially of course* but still, shows how braizen these cops are getting.

 

[grasping the after wind]

View attachment 166385
A chart on US citizens granted UK citizenship since 1990 with trendline.

I knew you could do it. What a coup you have proven that more than 5 people at some time wanted to emigrate to the UK . Now all you have to do to completely debunk my sarcastic remark is to find 6 or more that haven't done that yet and prove they are clamoring to emigate. I know you can do that too, it will be interesting to see the result.

 

[Vylo]

I have to see if I can drag up the video, but the guys who shot were attacked by the protesters before they fire. The protesters gathered around them and started shouting at them to take off their masks (scarves or bandanas of some kind). The ground starts getting aggressive and you can see them being hit a few times.

As the protesters chased them, one of them noted that one was reaching for something in his waistband. He stopped chasing and shouted that the guy had a gun, but I guess most didn't get the memo.

 

[Vylo]

Now the video of the protesters admitting they attacked them has been deleted, what the?

EDIT:

Ah, here it is (warning, language):

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I have to see if I can drag up the video, but the guys who shot were attacked by the protesters before they fire. The protesters gathered around them and started shouting at them to take off their masks (scarves or bandanas of some kind). The ground starts getting aggressive and you can see them being hit a few times.

As the protesters chased them, one of them noted that one was reaching for something in his waistband. He stopped chasing and shouted that the guy had a gun, but I guess most didn't get the memo.

Yet most of the media tries to give the impression that BLM was just having a peaceful vigil where these guys just showed up and started shooting, completely unprovoked.

 

[AirPo]

Now the video of the protesters admitting they attacked them has been deleted, what the?

EDIT:

Ah, here it is (warning, language):

Only watched it once, but it sounds they they got "attacked" after showing a gun.

 

[Vylo]

Only watched it once, but it sounds they they got "attacked" after showing a gun.

Watch again.

"somebody out of the crowd, punched one of them, and they hit the gate, after that one of them started reaching and backing up" "I'm like, he got a gun!"

 

[TheBear]

Now the video of the protesters admitting they attacked them has been deleted, what the?

EDIT:

Ah, here it is (warning, language):

It's amazing that a source calling itself "Bipartisan Report" would deliberately omit that part of the story, and basically propagandize the situation.

Wow.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's amazing that a source calling itself "Bipartisan Report" would deliberately omit that part of the story, and basically propagandize the situation.

Wow.

You beat me to it...

Hopefully someone will be releasing a true "bipartisan report" soon.

Sounds like this article is being used for a few different agendas here.

1) Giving people a chance to make claims of racism
2) Giving people a chance to once again claim that we need to revisit our gun policy
3) Throw out the word "terrorist" as a weak attempt to try to catch people in a falsely perceived "double-standard"

Essentially baiting and waiting for some one to say "well, these guys aren't terrorists, they're lone actors", so they can immediately come back with a snarky "OOOHHHH, so when white people do it it's not terrorism"

 

[loveofourlord]

I have to see if I can drag up the video, but the guys who shot were attacked by the protesters before they fire. The protesters gathered around them and started shouting at them to take off their masks (scarves or bandanas of some kind). The ground starts getting aggressive and you can see them being hit a few times.

As the protesters chased them, one of them noted that one was reaching for something in his waistband. He stopped chasing and shouted that the guy had a gun, but I guess most didn't get the memo.

yes, but is that grounds to shoot? I don't know about you, but I be rather leery and hostile to a bunch of guys hiding their identities at a peaceful protest, especially when they are filming them. The guys that showed up were the agressors here and surprise suprirse someone doesn't like it, but no, chasing and punching someone are now shootable offenses. Is ther literally nothing in the united states that can't be used as a defense for shooting someone?

You have cops using the defense of, "He was suspicious because he looked at me too long." or such for abuse.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

chasing and punching someone are now shootable offenses. Is ther literally nothing in the united states that can't be used as a defense for shooting someone?

by the letter of the law in most states, yes, someone (or a small group) chasing and punching you would allow for use of force.

You have an initial duty to retreat from a confrontation (unless it's a "stand your ground" state in which you're under no obligation to retreat), if you're attempting to retreat, and they pursue and starting throwing punches, you're within your rights as a CCW holder to use force.

You're speaking is if getting chased & punched by a group of people is "no big deal".

I ask, what level would the they have had to escalate it to before the person would've been justified in drawing their weapon in your opinion?

Reginald Denny still can't see straight today as a result of the chasing/beating he took back in the 90's when a group of protesters got mad at him.

An angry group of protesters getting out of hand is no joke.

 

[loveofourlord]

by the letter of the law in most states, yes, someone (or a small group) chasing and punching you would allow for use of force.

You have an initial duty to retreat from a confrontation (unless it's a "stand your ground" state in which you're under no obligation to retreat), if you're attempting to retreat, and they pursue and starting throwing punches, you're within your rights as a CCW holder to use force.

You're speaking is if getting chased & punched by a group of people is "no big deal".

I ask, what level would the they have had to escalate it to before the person would've been justified in drawing their weapon in your opinion?

Reginald Denny still can't see straight today as a result of the chasing/beating he took back in the 90's when a group of protesters got mad at him.

An angry group of protesters getting out of hand is no joke.

at the point your life is actually in danger, most civil societies have laws about when you can use physical force, heck not even cops are allowed to shoot people, or least shouldn't in most countries at the point they are shooting now. You can't start a incident then start shooting the second it turns out badly for you. You have armed thugs hiding their identities at a peaceful protest, and causing a scene. Then when people get tired of their nonsense suddenly your allowed to shoot them? especially when your running away? The point they were shot the guy was fleeing.

I'm so disgusted with whats become of the states where every shooting is justified no matter how stupid or ilegal it should be. You don't have the right to just kill people willie nillie.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

In light of this awful incident I will be arguing for a complete ban on all US immigrants coming to the UK. There's no way we can be 100% sure of their intentions.

I think given the lax gun laws in the USA it's important to be hyper-vigilant of any of them migrating from one country to another...

 

[loveofourlord]

I think given the lax gun laws in the USA it's important to be hyper-vigilant of any of them migrating from one country to another...

especially when you have cops going to Canada and angry because they can't shoot people for asking a question.

 

[Vylo]

yes, but is that grounds to shoot? I don't know about you, but I be rather leery and hostile to a bunch of guys hiding their identities at a peaceful protest, especially when they are filming them. The guys that showed up were the agressors here and surprise suprirse someone doesn't like it, but no, chasing and punching someone are now shootable offenses. Is ther literally nothing in the united states that can't be used as a defense for shooting someone?

You have cops using the defense of, "He was suspicious because he looked at me too long." or such for abuse.

Yes, it is. They were surrounding by a mob chasing and punching them. All they did was video some of the protest, which is quite legal. Nothing they did legitimized attacking them. The people who used the "looking at them too long" defense would be the protesters who attacked.

Honestly, by what I've seen and the accounts of the events I heard, the shooter was within his rights to defend himself and his friends.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, it is. They were surrounding by a mob chasing and punching them. All they did was video some of the protest, which is quite legal. Nothing they did legitimized attacking them. The people who used the "looking at them too long" defense would be the protesters who attacked.

Honestly, by what I've seen and the accounts of the events I heard, the shooter was within his rights to defend himself and his friends.

then you don't understand rights, sorry but what he did would be ilegal in just about any country but the US. And any justifying his actions is just wrong, you can't just shoot people. I'm sorry this is a hard lesson for people to understand, but having a gun doesn't give you license to kill. Your job is to get yourself out of the situation no ifs and buts. And they were not just filming, they were hiding who they were, obviously armed, anyone with a semblence of intelligence would be concerned having them around. Why else would they hide who they are unless they were planning to do something like this.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You have armed thugs hiding their identities at a peaceful protest, and causing a scene.

What evidence do you have to suggest they were thugs? There's no law against concealing your identity, or your weapon (provided you have the proper permit of course).

There's also no law against "causing a scene", provided you're not physically harming anyone else.

BLM protesters of all people can attest to that.

So when these guys blocked a major highway, they definitely caused a scene and disruption. Were BLM protesters the aggressors on this one then?

If the first amendment protects the right of BLM to protest, then it would also protect the right of another group to show up to voice their displeasure with the BLM protest, would it not?

I'm so disgusted with whats become of the states where every shooting is justified no matter how stupid or ilegal it should be. You don't have the right to just kill people willie nillie.

...but again, someone chasing you and punching you isn't a "stupid reason", it's precisely what the law was written to account for. Someone calling you a name, someone spilling your drink...those would be a stupid reason to shoot someone.

From my states Atty Gen. publication on the matter
Deadly force may be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is “serious.” In deciding whether the risk of bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury can consider how the victim attacked the defendant.

You keep bringing up that "someone chasing & punching you is a stupid reason to shoot"...is it also fair to assume that you would criticize BLM since someone wearing a mask and filming you is a "stupid reason to chase and punch someone"?

In your post, you try to justify the BLM actions of chasing and punching on the grounds of
when people get tired of their nonsense


So, to recap, your position is
"Someone getting tired of your nonsense" is a valid reason to start chasing and punching
But someone chasing and punching isn't a valid reason to defend yourself?


Sounds to me like you're just determined to side with BLM no matter what.

 

[Vylo]

then you don't understand rights, sorry but what he did would be ilegal in just about any country but the US. And any justifying his actions is just wrong, you can't just shoot people. I'm sorry this is a hard lesson for people to understand, but having a gun doesn't give you license to kill. Your job is to get yourself out of the situation no ifs and buts. And they were not just filming, they were hiding who they were, obviously armed, anyone with a semblence of intelligence would be concerned having them around. Why else would they hide who they are unless they were planning to do something like this.

He didn't just shoot people.

Those people attacked and chased him without provocation. You aren't allowed to do that. He performed his duty to retreat, but was still being attacked. They were filming with scarves on, much like the protesters themselves. There is nothing illegal about filming people in public areas, in fact, many of the protesters were filming, you can find a video of the protesters filming the shooters. If they had come over and started shouting at the protesters, inciting violence, that would be different. They just started filming the area. That's not provocation.

 

[loveofourlord]

What evidence do you have to suggest they were thugs? There's no law against concealing your identity, or your weapon (provided you have the proper permit of course).

There's also no law against "causing a scene", provided you're not physically harming anyone else.

BLM protesters of all people can attest to that.

So when these guys blocked a major highway, they definitely caused a scene and disruption. Were BLM protesters the aggressors on this one then?

If the first amendment protects the right of BLM to protest, then it would also protect the right of another group to show up to voice their displeasure with the BLM protest, would it not?



...but again, someone chasing you and punching you isn't a "stupid reason", it's precisely what the law was written to account for. Someone calling you a name, someone spilling your drink...those would be a stupid reason to shoot someone.

From my states Atty Gen. publication on the matter
Deadly force may be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is “serious.” In deciding whether the risk of bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury can consider how the victim attacked the defendant.

You keep bringing up that "someone chasing & punching you is a stupid reason to shoot"...is it also fair to assume that you would criticize BLM since someone wearing a mask and filming you is a "stupid reason to chase and punch someone"?

In your post, you try to justify the BLM actions of chasing and punching on the grounds of
when people get tired of their nonsense


So, to recap, your position is
"Someone getting tired of your nonsense" is a valid reason to start chasing and punching
But someone chasing and punching isn't a valid reason to defend yourself

You have a right to defend yourse you don't have the right to KILL someone for punching you, that is called excesive force and is extremly ilegal. you can't kill me because I punched you, or pushede you, or chased you. that is not grounds to KILL, you can't just kill someone for any reason and no hate to break it to you being cahsed, or punched is not grounds to kill. If you think so then maybe you shouldn't be allowed near a gun.

I'm not defending the protestors I'm simply pointing out why they might over react, and anyone throwing a punch should get charged with asault, just as the shooters should be charged with attempted homicide. I'm sick of this BS where everyone thinks you can just kill someone for the minorist of things, and YES being punched or kicked is minor by law, you can't kill someone for it. Defending yourself does not equal killing. Unless you are in serious danger of being killed yourself, your not allowed to kill someone and being punched a few times, and chased are not even remotly close to being in danger of being killed.

 

[loveofourlord]

He didn't just shoot people.

Those people attacked and chased him without provocation. You aren't allowed to do that. He performed his duty to retreat, but was still being attacked. They were filming with scarves on, much like the protesters themselves. There is nothing illegal about filming people in public areas, in fact, many of the protesters were filming, you can find a video of the protesters filming the shooters. If they had come over and started shouting at the protesters, inciting violence, that would be different. They just started filming the area. That's not provocation.

shooting people that attacked you without provocation is a crime and ilegal. SORRY to break it to you, but it's ilegal to kill someone unless you are in mortal danger and nothing I've heard comes close to the legal grounds for trying to kill someone.