Diner pulls gun on armed BLM protestors

Gregorikos said:

Discharging a weapon in city limits is another matter entirely.

Click to expand...

You’re not allowed to fire your weapon within city limits?? Even in self defence?

disciple Clint said:

Clue: it is not the gun that cause the problem, it is the person holding the gun. BLM has a well deserved reputation for violence.

Click to expand...

The police also has a well deserved reputation for violence. And that history goes back much further than BLM

Skreeper said:

The police also has a well deserved reputation for violence. And that history goes back much further than BLM

Click to expand...

What do you think?

Ought the protesters have been carrying weapons?
Did they raid the cafe?
Ought the diner have felt threatened?
Should he have brandished his weapon at the crowd generally?
Should a protester as an individual in the protest respond by pointing weaponry back at him?

Confused-by-christianity said:

You’re not allowed to fire your weapon within city limits?? Even in self defence?

Click to expand...

Sure, in self defense. But if there is a gunfight, somebody is going to jail. (If they survive)

Confused-by-christianity said:

What do you think?

Ought the protesters have been carrying weapons?
Did they raid the cafe?
Ought the diner have felt threatened?
Should he have brandished his weapon at the crowd generally?
Should a protester as an individual in the protest respond by pointing weaponry back at him?

Click to expand...

Here is the photo again of the restaurant. The diner was sitting at one of those tables in front. If the protesters came from the left, he didn't even see them until they were right in front of his table. In any case, he was essentially in a corner. I suspect that if the protesters simply walked by, there wouldn't have been an issue, but I don't know that for sure. What happened before he pulled his gun... I don't know.

Gregorikos said:

...What happened before he pulled his gun... I don't know...

Click to expand...

I don’t know either.

I think there might be a blind spot in US thinking whereby they see good guys and bad guys (that’s wrong, things aren’t like that). They can’t seem to see how good guys and good guys might come into conflict with each other and both be correct. ???

it’s a flaw in the thinking / philosophy perhaps??

do you think there’s likely a clear good guy and clear bad guy? (Assuming you had access to all the evidence and saw everything - do you believe there is always a good guy and always a bad guy in every conflict?)

Maybe it’s possible that everyone exercising their constitutional rights all the time simply ends in conflict some of the time? (if those rights are contradictory to each other - as it could be in this example).

Confused-by-christianity said:

I don’t know either.

I think there might be a blind spot in US thinking whereby they see good guys and bad guys (that’s wrong, things aren’t like that). They can’t seem to see how good guys and good guys might come into conflict with each other and both be correct. ???

it’s a flaw in the thinking / philosophy perhaps??

do you think there’s likely a clear good guy and clear bad guy? (Assuming you had access to all the evidence and saw everything - do you believe there is always a good guy and always a bad guy in every conflict?)

Maybe it’s possible that everyone exercising their constitutional rights all the time simply ends in conflict some of the time? (if those rights are contradictory to each other - as it could be in this example).

Click to expand...

There is not always a good guy and a bad guy in every conflict, and I don't know who was who in this one.

What I do know is that most of the protesters are in pursuit of a worthy cause- ending systemic oppression against black people by the justice system. They want true justice.

And I do know that these protesters stated purpose was to disrupt the peace of innocent individuals in order to help achieve their otherwise worthy cause.

It appears that is what happened. The man and his companions could have abruptly left their dinner and fled inside the small and likely packed restaurant, hoping to be reimbursed by the restaurant for the cost of their meal and/or suffered the loss themselves. They were either taken by surprise and quickly surrounded by the protesters, or else he chose to remain at his table and stand his ground.

But given the actions in Louisville of the last 11 months, and the stated purpose of the protesters to ruin the days events for innocent people, I tend to suspect there is a good guy/bad guy situation here, and the bad guys were among the protesters.

KCfromNC said:

I do appreciate how it is OK to lump all BLM protesters together, but not white men. Wonder what the difference is?

Click to expand...

It's okay for certain people to be armed and pull out their guns, just not for black people and followers of BLM. If they are armed, then it's a threat. Gotta love that logic.

Does anyone have evidence that protesters pulled out weapons? There is talk of armed protesters as if they were brandishing and pointing guns at non-protesters, where is there evidence of this?

Gregorikos said:

And I do know that these protesters stated purpose was to disrupt the peace of innocent individuals in order to help achieve their otherwise worthy cause.

Click to expand...

That not going to win friends :-/
Being angry enough to target those who want to stay out of the fight is not a good indicator. Nearly sounds like convert or die.

Do you think this is normal levels of dissent for America or do you think America is frighteningly divided?

SummerMadness said:

Does anyone have evidence that protesters pulled out weapons? There is talk of armed protesters as if they were brandishing and pointing guns at non-protesters, where is there evidence of this?

Click to expand...

In the video.

Confused-by-christianity said:

That not going to win friends :-/
Being angry enough to target those who want to stay out of the fight is not a good indicator. Nearly sounds like convert or die.

Do you think this is normal levels of dissent for America or do you think America is frighteningly divided?

Click to expand...

America is frighteningly divided. This isn't normal levels of dissent for America. It *may* have approached something like this in the 1960s, but I was young and pretty isolated in an all white county at the time so I can't say for sure.

And Louisville is a hotspot. These protesters specifically want what they perceive is justice for the Breonna Taylor case, which they see as very clear cut and obvious, but legally isn't so clear cut at all. The George Floyd case was a no-brainer, anyone with eyes could see Derek Chauvin murdered that poor man and ought to be in prison.

The Breonna Taylor case is far more difficult. She was dating men that were involved in drug trafficking. The police served a drug warrant in the middle of the night on her boyfriend, who she was sleeping with in her apartment. The boyfriend fired a shot at the cops. The cops shot back, hitting and killing Breonna Taylor. There are questions about the propriety of the warrant, served after midnight. It appears the cops wrote down incorrect times on thier paperwork in order to make themselves look better. The boyfriend says he was afraid and thought someone was breaking in. That's understandable. It shouldn't have happened the way it did, but it's impossible to prove murder in court, which is what the protesters want. I don't know how long it will go on, but unfortunate incidents like this will continue as long as the protesters continue to target innocent people.

disciple Clint said:

Oh so now all white men act exactly the same, what do they call that kind of thinking?

Click to expand...

Are you saying it is not true?

disciple Clint said:

We can see they were speaking at each other, maybe they were discussing the weather but I doubt it, past encounters where innocent people were harassed by BLM protesters would suggest a pattern of behavior.

Click to expand...

Did you notice the makeup of the BLM crowd? I noticed. They could have been saying "put your gun away because you don't want any of this."

disciple Clint said:

He would have not reason to shoot anyone who was not acting in a way that threatened to cause him grievous bodily injury of death.

Click to expand...

Are you SERIOUS? The white man invited grievous bodily harm to himself by pulling his gun! He possibly could shot one person before he was overpowered himself. He should be thankful that the BLM had some cool heads that protected him.

Gregorikos said:

America is frighteningly divided.

Click to expand...

I wonder what all Americans might have as a shared experience? Something they all know is “true” growing up in America.

That might be a way of building a common brotherhood / sisterhood amongst all Americans. ???

disciple Clint said:

Clue: it is not the gun that cause the problem, it is the person holding the gun.

Click to expand...

So the problem in your opinion, the white man seen holding the gun was the problem.

Confused-by-christianity said:

I wonder what all Americans might have as a shared experience? Something they all know is “true” growing up in America.

That might be a way of building a common brotherhood / sisterhood amongst all Americans. ???

Click to expand...

That's a tough one. I think growing up black and growing up white tend to be very different in the US.

disciple Clint said:

It should be obvious, he was outnumbered by armed people who were not there to eat food. He had a right to defend himself from an obvious threat.

Click to expand...

He should have seen that he was out manned before he pulled his gun. If he really thought the people were armed, that made him also out gunned. Stupid to pull a gun in that situation. It was not stated why the BLM were there so you can't say they were not there to eat. Yes he had the right to get himself killed.