Terrorist attack in Minnesota!

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

It depends on the circumstance. If I'm being chased by 4-5 people (some of whom might be faster than I am), you need an equalizer...I'm certainly not going to try to fistfight in a 1 on 5 handicap match...that's a sure fire way to catch a serious beating.

I'll ask that you re-watch this video.

This is what happens when you're getting punched and chased by numerous people and you don't have an equalizer.

Reginald Denny tried to follow your advice. He tried to flee, when he got cornered by his truck, he tried to fight back with non-lethal means. Take a look at what happened to him...

You acknowledge that a person has a right to defend themselves. I ask, in a 4 on one situation, how do you defend your self without an equalizer? To just try to take on one person and hope the other sit on the sidelines and come in one at a time?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

If it were a one on one scenario and the two people were of equal size strength and age, then I might be inclined to agree with you.

However, if it's not one on one, or your at a significant physical disadvantage to the person who's trying to rough you up, you need an equalizer, plain and simple...or you'd better be prepared to take a savage beating.

 

[Vylo]

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.

Being hit and chased by a mob is mortal danger. If you don't believe me go try it out .

 

[loveofourlord]

It depends on the circumstance. If I'm being chased by 4-5 people (some of whom might be faster than I am), you need an equalizer...I'm certainly not going to try to fistfight in a 1 on 5 handicap match...that's a sure fire way to catch a serious beating.

I'll ask that you re-watch this video.

This is what happens when you're getting punched and chased by numerous people and you don't have an equalizer.

Reginald Denny tried to follow your advice. He tried to flee, when he got cornered by his truck, he tried to fight back with non-lethal means. Take a look at what happened to him...

You acknowledge that a person has a right to defend themselves. I ask, in a 4 on one situation, how do you defend your self without an equalizer? To just try to take on one person and hope the other sit on the sidelines and come in one at a time?

you might have a argument that the guy in that video can POSSIBLY shoot back, but again, there are strict rules on when you can or can't shoot someone, or every bar room brawl woiuld turn into a shootout. My problem is the sickness that has taken over the states where every situation should be solved by shooting people. Where it's just assumed that someone with a gun has the right to kill others. there have been cases in the past where people have gone to jail for LESS then this heard them all the time growing up, cases that are far more justified then this.

Also I should point out, it's also ilegal to react to what someone MIGHT do. You can't punch me because you think I might punch you, and you can't shoot me because I might cause harm. Yes they might have caught up, maybe not maybe they just wanted to chase him off we don't know now. By your standards, what situation isn't justified by shooting someone? If you and me get into a fight and your losing can you shoot me? If you just robbed me and I'm chasing you can you shoot me and call it self denfense? This situation is different, but there are laws about when you can and can't shoot, and these laws are getitng more and more lax as it's coming to the point where someone doesn't have to be in danger, just thinks they are.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

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

Why do you insist on calling it a peaceful protest? These guys were physically assaulted it wasn't peaceful.

ou 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.

Nobody was killed.

 

[loveofourlord]

Being hit and chased by a mob is mortal danger. If you don't believe me go try it out .

you can survive being chased and hit. These arn't grounds to kill.

 

[Vylo]

you might have a argument that the guy in that video can POSSIBLY shoot back, but again, there are strict rules on when you can or can't shoot someone, or every bar room brawl woiuld turn into a shootout. My problem is the sickness that has taken over the states where every situation should be solved by shooting people. Where it's just assumed that someone with a gun has the right to kill others. there have been cases in the past where people have gone to jail for LESS then this heard them all the time growing up, cases that are far more justified then this.

Also I should point out, it's also ilegal to react to what someone MIGHT do. You can't punch me because you think I might punch you, and you can't shoot me because I might cause harm. Yes they might have caught up, maybe not maybe they just wanted to chase him off we don't know now. By your standards, what situation isn't justified by shooting someone? If you and me get into a fight and your losing can you shoot me? If you just robbed me and I'm chasing you can you shoot me and call it self denfense? This situation is different, but there are laws about when you can and can't shoot, and these laws are getitng more and more lax as it's coming to the point where someone doesn't have to be in danger, just thinks they are.

They did hit him. It wasn't might, they did. They were physically assaulted. The laws in most states would back up the shooters, since they did nothing wrong and were attacked.

 

[Vylo]

you can survive being chased and hit. These arn't grounds to kill.

They didn't kill.

You can survive being shot.

You can survive being set on fire, the vacuum of space, drowning, freezing, large falls, lots of things. That doesn't mean you will and that you shouldn't being able to defend yourself against people subjecting you to these things when you did nothing wrong.

 

[loveofourlord]

They didn't kill.

You can survive being shot.

You can survive being set on fire, the vacuum of space, drowning, freezing, large falls, lots of things. That doesn't mean you will and that you shouldn't being able to defend yourself against people subjecting you to these things when you did nothing wrong.

considering one was shot in the stomach it's pretty hard to pretend the shooter wasn't trying to kill them.

 

[Vylo]

considering one was shot in the stomach it's pretty hard to pretend the shooter wasn't trying to kill them.

That doesn't really show intent to kill, and isn't really relevant since he was defending himself.

 

[loveofourlord]

That doesn't really show intent to kill, and isn't really relevant since he was defending himself.

shooting people just chasing you is NOT defending yourself. They were quiet capable of likly still getting away. Again you can't use excesive violence to defend yourself you get that? You have to have a justified reason and just being chased is not a reason to try to kill someone under any circumstance like this. No matter how many times you try to say it is it's against the law.

 

[grandvizier1006]

I don't get this at all. is this really terrorism, a hate crime, or just someone trying to get back at the black Lives Matter group? you can't just throw the word terrorism around. It seems like nowadays the definition is "any time a group whose viewpoints I sympathize with is attacked/any time someone whose viewpoints I oppose attacks others." The definition is technically "any time that a group tries to strike fear in people in order to force an agenda".

Terrorism is also a very loaded word. If a gunman murders people in a high school, he can be described as a "shooter" "psychopath" "disturbed individual" or a "terrorist". I guess all definitions would be accurate, but let's be honest, it makes you think something different, right?

When the people of Ferguson and Baltimore rioted, they had motives and wanted to show their anger. The same could be said of al-Qaeda on 9/11. But only one group was called terrorists. Even the ft. Hood shooting was infamously called "workplace violence"rather than terrorism.

So the OP coudl have said "black lives matter protestors murdered/shot by white gunmen/supremacists/racists". But instead he chose to use the term "terrorists", not just for clickbait and confusion (terrorist makes you think Muslim often), but to garner sympathy from those that support the BLM groups.

I hate how language is so subjective like that. Has there been a study on this? They ought to give two groups the same headline, but describe them with different words: one group has the attacker referred to as a "terrorist", the other a "shooter/gun,an/etc." you could even give them a fictional news piece. Then have the group's discuss the piece, scan their brains to see what sort of emotions come up, etc. I think this would be interesting.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Immediate danger was met.
Unavoidable was met.
Duty to retreat was met.
We know who was looking for a fight and who was trying to avoid one.
The only element of self-defense that might not be met here, and the only case the prosecution would have, is whether the defendants had a reasonable belief in danger of death or grave bodily harm, and that using a firearm constituted unreasonable force. Given that the defendants were outnumbered by their assailiants, it might be difficult to convince a jury of that.

I suppose it comes down to this; would you rather face a jury in court or a mob of BLM on a rampage in the streets?

 

[Armoured]

So the OP coudl have said "black lives matter protestors murdered/shot by white gunmen/supremacists/racists". But instead he chose to use the term "terrorists", not just for clickbait and confusion (terrorist makes you think Muslim often)

Keep thinking... you're almost there...

 

[grandvizier1006]

Keep thinking... you're almost there...

Well, that's really condescending. i guess you want me to say, "To show that black people have a legitimate reason to fear white people with guns?"

Look, I get what this is, but it's a complex issue. Both sides--the white cops, and the black youth or whoever--have to work to de-escalate the tension. i think that prison reform would be better than fussing over cops getting filmed and black teens getting shot. Policies such as "if one person has drugs everybody in the home gets arrested", "years for marajuana" and unsanitary prison conditions and lack of care for prisoners would do the black community much better. Essentially, the punishment needs to fit the crime better. Also, black people are going to have to not buy into this us vs. Them mentality.

I have this same mindset myself about liberals and conservatives in politics, and I like to pretend it's a matter of Jesus vs. Satan. It isn't; it's public discourse that just so happens to get nasty on the Internet. But part of being a Christian is repenting of what you know you did wrong, and becoming more aware of your sin as keep going with your life. I've had to face the fact that I'm a bigot and very unempathic, and current events make it worse sometimes. But to assume that only conservatives need to change their ways is a big mistake--and impossible to enforce.

 

[Armoured]

Well, that's really condescending. i guess you want me to say, "To show that black people have a legitimate reason to fear white people with guns?"

Look, I get what this is, but it's a complex issue. Both sides--the white cops, and the black youth or whoever--have to work to de-escalate the tension. i think that prison reform would be better than fussing over cops getting filmed and black teens getting shot. Policies such as "if one person has drugs everybody in the home gets arrested", "years for marajuana" and unsanitary prison conditions and lack of care for prisoners would do the black community much better. Essentially, the punishment needs to fit the crime better. Also, black people are going to have to not buy into this us vs. Them mentality.

I have this same mindset myself about liberals and conservatives in politics, and I like to pretend it's a matter of Jesus vs. Satan. It isn't; it's public discourse that just so happens to get nasty on the Internet. But part of being a Christian is repenting of what you know you did wrong, and becoming more aware of your sin as keep going with your life. I've had to face the fact that I'm a bigot and very unempathic, and current events make it worse sometimes. But to assume that only conservatives need to change their ways is a big mistake--and impossible to enforce.

*sigh* now you're over thinking it. The headline was written the way it was as a "see? not all terrorists are Muslims". Anything else you infer is yours alone.

 

[smaneck]

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.

In that case the BLM protester should have brought a gun to the Trump rally.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In that case the BLM protester should have brought a gun to the Trump rally.

That would be completely within their rights so long as they have the proper permit.

In fact, the Oath Keepers (often regarded as a ultra right wing militia) showed up to a BLM rally, and actually provided rifles for the BLM protesters to carry to defend themselves as well as making sure the police didn't break up their protest unlawfully.

If you'll notice, the concept of "white people at our protest with guns" doesn't seem to bother all of the protestors.

(I had to censor out part of her shirt that said "F the police" on it)

She's smiling and taking a selfie with the guy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Also I should point out, it's also ilegal to react to what someone MIGHT do. You can't punch me because you think I might punch you, and you can't shoot me because I might cause harm. Yes they might have caught up, maybe not maybe they just wanted to chase him off we don't know now. By your standards, what situation isn't justified by shooting someone?

That would ultimately be for a judge or jury to decide.

In the case of the guy in the video I posted...if you're waiting for the guy to actually hit you in the head with the brick before you take defensive action...you've waited to long, it's over at that point and you're on the ground in a helpless heap.

Every case & scenario is different...that's why we have judges and juries to decide these sorts of things. It's up to them to decide whether or not the reasons were warranted or stupid.

You're making it sound like I'm willing to shoot someone willy-nilly simply because I wouldn't take a chance at letting 4 people (who are chasing me) beat me.


By your standards, what situation isn't justified by shooting someone?
...well, by my standards, if I can avoid physical harm without using an equalizer, then I'll avoid it. If I can't, then I'll reach for my equalizer.

 

[Vylo]

That would be completely within their rights so long as they have the proper permit.

In fact, the Oath Keepers (often regarded as a ultra right wing militia) showed up to a BLM rally, and actually provided rifles for the BLM protesters to carry to defend themselves as well as making sure the police didn't break up their protest unlawfully.

If you'll notice, the concept of "white people at our protest with guns" doesn't seem to bother all of the protestors.

View attachment 166444

(I had to censor out part of her shirt that said "F the police" on it)

She's smiling and taking a selfie with the guy.

The oathkeepers are a very strange group. I get the feeling the demographics of their membership varies widely.