Hey, let's throw a bag with insect repellant, $6, and wet wipes at a guy with an AR!texsn95 said:Hope that last bag throw was worth it!GeorgiAg said:
Pic of bag
Dude shoots attacking rioters
144,794 Views |
1321 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by will25u
DOD 26 Aug 2020
who gives a flying ****.GeorgiAg said:
Pic of bag
a protestor has forfeited any benefit of the doubt.
an assault of any kind justifies what happened.
LOL
agracer said:Again, he crossed state lines to defend property that did not belong to him nor he had an commercial interest in protecting (that we know of right now). It would be one thing if this were an adult with a commercial interest in the property in question, and he was there defending his/her property (even being from out of state). He was not only under age, he willingly went their armed to an area of know rioting.1836er said:Could it be because, just maybe, and I'm just speculating here... given the unwillingness of the political authorities to use the force necessary to protect the lives and property of the citizenry, he felt it was his duty... even at the risk of his own life, to defend the lives and property of those either unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Given the video from earlier in the evening that shows him offering to medically care (I believe he is a trained EMT) for a couple injured BLM protesters, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.agracer said:It's been asked more than once and not really answered. A jury is going to consider that when/if this goes to court. WTF was a 17yr old in an area of a riot (where he went, on purpose, armed) to "defend property" which he did not own, or have any interest in.Aggie95 said:
so it was a 17 y/o kid that shot rioters? Was he just there to protect the area? What was his purpose of walking around armed?
I'm all for being armed and careful....I just questions someones judgement that goes into a rioting area.
John 15:13
I'm not saying he should go to jail or he was not acting in self defense, but it really is a case of use your head. If your 17yr old kid told you he was going to drive up to OK from Denton to defend property he did not own, would you open the guns safe, hand him a bunch of ammo and say, "be safe", or would you take his car keys away and tell him NFW you're doing that?
The prosecutor is going to paint a picture of a vigilante looking to harm by his actions leading up to the incident. The kid better hope his social media account doesn't have any hateful rhetoric posted or he'll have a real problem on his hand.
I don't care what a prosecutor thinks. I care what a jury thinks. No way they get unanimous votes for conviction.
I am a slave of Christ
Stop conflating the Castle Doctrine with an affirmative defense of self defense. Two separate legal theories.Quote:
Again, he crossed state lines to defend property that did not belong to him nor he had an commercial interest in protecting (that we know of right now). It would be one thing if this were an adult with a commercial interest in the property in question, and he was there defending his/her property (even being from out of state). He was not only under age, he willingly went their armed to an area of know rioting.
I'm not saying he should go to jail or he was not acting in self defense, but it really is a case of use your head. If your 17yr old kid told you he was going to drive up to OK from Denton to defend property he did not own, would you open the guns safe, hand him a bunch of ammo and say, "be safe", or would you take his car keys away and tell him NFW you're doing that?
You can defend yourself wherever you are and Wisconsin has no duty to retreat, even though he was retreating.
Castle Doctrine is irrelevant to this case.
He was 51? Mini me over there should've known better to be involved with any of that nonsense, let alone be a small enough man to try and throw down at a gas station and later chase and hurl things at someone who was armed.ABATTBQ11 said:
DOB is 1969
Hopefully it isn't American, it's like its too Capitalist to be a good AK.CalebMcCreary06 said:
This is why I just picked up a new AK-47.
In the background of that pic of the bag guy, you can see the guy that got shot in the arm on his phone. Also in another pic with the bald guy the skateboard guy is behind him. So all 3 of those guys were in the same place when that bald guy was making a ruckus begging someone to "shoot me ni##ga".
This whole thing must have gone down from that incident in some way. Not sure why the bald guy started chasing the kid with the AR initially but something set that sequence of events in motion.
This whole thing must have gone down from that incident in some way. Not sure why the bald guy started chasing the kid with the AR initially but something set that sequence of events in motion.
Yep, and if you're severely outnumbered in an unstable area dominated by a mob who would love to rip you to shreds, and one of them is charging you while you are armed and in defensive position, that has to be 100% justified imo. No way he wasn't truly in fear for his life...and he should have been. These are animals who are torching buildings and would gladly take your gun and kill you with it.Mr. AGSPRT04 said:Yukon Cornelius said:
That is assault. Which you can defend yourself from.
I quoted a poster saying a threat of beating someone up green lights deadly force. "I'm going to beat up Yukon Cornelius" does not give you an affirmative defense to shoot me. A reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm is required in Wisconsin as I understand it.
I would argue that every real American has a personal and commercial interest in the destruction of personal property and infringement of people's 4th amendment rightsQuote:
It would be one thing if this were an adult with a commercial interest in the property in question,
you're probably right about some scumbag prosecutor, but anyone taking arms to protect private property from looting is a hero, not a vigilante.agracer said:Again, he crossed state lines to defend property that did not belong to him nor he had an commercial interest in protecting (that we know of right now). It would be one thing if this were an adult with a commercial interest in the property in question, and he was there defending his/her property (even being from out of state). He was not only under age, he willingly went their armed to an area of know rioting.1836er said:Could it be because, just maybe, and I'm just speculating here... given the unwillingness of the political authorities to use the force necessary to protect the lives and property of the citizenry, he felt it was his duty... even at the risk of his own life, to defend the lives and property of those either unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Given the video from earlier in the evening that shows him offering to medically care (I believe he is a trained EMT) for a couple injured BLM protesters, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.agracer said:It's been asked more than once and not really answered. A jury is going to consider that when/if this goes to court. WTF was a 17yr old in an area of a riot (where he went, on purpose, armed) to "defend property" which he did not own, or have any interest in.Aggie95 said:
so it was a 17 y/o kid that shot rioters? Was he just there to protect the area? What was his purpose of walking around armed?
I'm all for being armed and careful....I just questions someones judgement that goes into a rioting area.
John 15:13
I'm not saying he should go to jail or he was not acting in self defense, but it really is a case of use your head. If your 17yr old kid told you he was going to drive up to OK from Denton to defend property he did not own, would you open the guns safe, hand him a bunch of ammo and say, "be safe", or would you take his car keys away and tell him NFW you're doing that?
The prosecutor is going to paint a picture of a vigilante looking to harm by his actions leading up to the incident. The kid better hope his social media account doesn't have any hateful rhetoric posted or he'll have a real problem on his hand.
if you want policy change, you lobby. you write editorials. if you're stupid, you can also go peacefully protest at the legislature during the day while in session. this is how policy gets influenced.
if you are just some ' useful idiot' or criminal piece of ****, for whatever reason biting on anti american socialist discord, and rioting at night or threatening people or their property, then you should expect to be dead, because you are an anti american socialist criminal piece of *****
Again, his purpose in going across state lines, with a weapon he was not allowed to carry, was to defend property. The prosecution is going to paint a picture of him that will not be flattering or help his defense. He had NO REASON TO BE THERE that any reasonable person would be able to justify.aggiehawg said:Stop conflating the Castle Doctrine with an affirmative defense of self defense. Two separate legal theories.Quote:
Again, he crossed state lines to defend property that did not belong to him nor he had an commercial interest in protecting (that we know of right now). It would be one thing if this were an adult with a commercial interest in the property in question, and he was there defending his/her property (even being from out of state). He was not only under age, he willingly went their armed to an area of know rioting.
I'm not saying he should go to jail or he was not acting in self defense, but it really is a case of use your head. If your 17yr old kid told you he was going to drive up to OK from Denton to defend property he did not own, would you open the guns safe, hand him a bunch of ammo and say, "be safe", or would you take his car keys away and tell him NFW you're doing that?
You can defend yourself wherever you are and Wisconsin has no duty to retreat, even though he was retreating.
Castle Doctrine is irrelevant to this case.
Yes, he had a right to defend himself when attached. But we all know the prosecution is going to ask the jury "why was he there to begin with?"....
He is on video last night calmly explaining his position and why he was there (defending private property). He was into blue lives matter, if they had any gotcha posts it would be all over twitter.
You know every media type is just praying he is a qanon guy.
You know every media type is just praying he is a qanon guy.
GeorgiAg said:
He was just charged with first degree murder
That DA needs to be strung up. Hopefully local LEO will be willing to put pressure on the DA to do the right thing. Could be wrong but I could see this turning big if people see this kids rights trampled.
I've been telling you all that the law is actively working with the left now and that you cannot defend yourselves without getting arrested. Now that people are finally realizing this, I expect responses to be a lot more significant since people realize they will be arrested no matter what.Rapier108 said:
Law and order is dead at the hands of the Democrats.
You could shoot these thugs as they set your house on fire, and you'll be the one charged with a crime.
Oh man you need to back up and read this thread first. He was chased by the first guy before he ever fired a shot.
Does any American have to have a reason to be somewhere? Can someone not go from Illinois to Wisconsin without a "reason"?agracer said:Again, his purpose in going across state lines, with a weapon he was not allowed to carry, was to defend property. The prosecution is going to paint a picture of him that will not be flattering or help his defense. He had NO REASON TO BE THERE that any reasonable person would be able to justify.aggiehawg said:Stop conflating the Castle Doctrine with an affirmative defense of self defense. Two separate legal theories.Quote:
Again, he crossed state lines to defend property that did not belong to him nor he had an commercial interest in protecting (that we know of right now). It would be one thing if this were an adult with a commercial interest in the property in question, and he was there defending his/her property (even being from out of state). He was not only under age, he willingly went their armed to an area of know rioting.
I'm not saying he should go to jail or he was not acting in self defense, but it really is a case of use your head. If your 17yr old kid told you he was going to drive up to OK from Denton to defend property he did not own, would you open the guns safe, hand him a bunch of ammo and say, "be safe", or would you take his car keys away and tell him NFW you're doing that?
You can defend yourself wherever you are and Wisconsin has no duty to retreat, even though he was retreating.
Castle Doctrine is irrelevant to this case.
Yes, he had a right to defend himself when attached. But we all know the prosecution is going to ask the jury "why was he there to begin with?"....
Brandishing a weapon is legal if threaten. They were trying to light the gas station on fire earlier.
He killed the red shirt guy that was yelling at him for pointing the gun in early videos.
Shooter tries to get away, I'm assuming, from red shirt and skater guy. They keep chasing eventually cornering him this getting red shirt guy killed.
Shooter attempts to call police, mob mentality takes over and they pursue again to capture and beat him.
Shooter is chased and knocked down, kicked and hit in the head by the skateboard guy who takes one in the mid center for the attack.
One armed guy pretends to surrender by placing his hands up, draws his gun and gets his arm shot off. Supposedly one arm guy admitted to trying to trick him by raising his arms, and was going to execute him.
Shooter tries to get away, I'm assuming, from red shirt and skater guy. They keep chasing eventually cornering him this getting red shirt guy killed.
Shooter attempts to call police, mob mentality takes over and they pursue again to capture and beat him.
Shooter is chased and knocked down, kicked and hit in the head by the skateboard guy who takes one in the mid center for the attack.
One armed guy pretends to surrender by placing his hands up, draws his gun and gets his arm shot off. Supposedly one arm guy admitted to trying to trick him by raising his arms, and was going to execute him.
Kid is a hero in my book. I hope he gets zero to minimal time and that it only emboldens him.
Armed Americans who care and want the destruction to stop are all we have in these democrat controlled states/areas. Police aren't allowed to do anything but stand around and watch the violent liberal mobs assault others, destroy property and burn entire city blocks to the ground.
I hope this sparks serious growth of militias nationwide. Been saying for years, eventually the white liberals are going to push too far and they are going to get bitten by the snake.
Armed Americans who care and want the destruction to stop are all we have in these democrat controlled states/areas. Police aren't allowed to do anything but stand around and watch the violent liberal mobs assault others, destroy property and burn entire city blocks to the ground.
I hope this sparks serious growth of militias nationwide. Been saying for years, eventually the white liberals are going to push too far and they are going to get bitten by the snake.
Where did you read this?Vader Was Framed said:BQ78 said:
Oh man you need to back up and read this thread first. He was chased by the first guy before he ever fired a shot.
Apologies for not having read the full thread. Wasn't claiming anything as fact. Read somewhere else someone was already dead before chase and considered it a possible scenario. Why was he being chased? Has that come out?
Red shirt guy was going after him early causing the shooter to retreat. It's in one of the other videos, maybe the stream one.
He is a patriot, and he started watering the Tree of Liberty ahead of schedule.
Vader Was Framed said:
Rumors online (of little value) coming out saying shooter was brandishing and pointing weapon at individuals before the shooting occured. Varying situations come to mind like the Georgia neighborhood shooting and the Austin protest (which had conflicting witness accounts). IF he was initiating conflict and then others reacted in self defense, can he then in turn claim self defense? Again no evidence of this but just considering the scenario. Obviously he is fearing for his life once being chased, but is there footage before the chase ensues? My understanding is he already killed one person at that point, prior to then killing and wounding others after chase.
Typically, you can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor in a situation. However, if you clearly disengage or back down and other party is still behaving in an aggressive manner that would cause you to fear for your life, then you can claim self defense. By running away I would say that he was absolutely trying to disengage.
We don't know what started the chase. Something could've happened that would've given bald guy legal grounds to chase him. He could've been a victim in the initial altercation, we just don't know at this point.
The first guy to get shot initiated the chase. The the shooter called the cops for help and tried to render aid. The mob started chasing him and the cops advised him to come their direction. At least that seems to be the thrust of the videos and several sources that reported on it.
1. He was defending a gas station all night.
2. People tried to burn it down but him and others there prevented it.
3. The first guy he shot threaten them and then asked them to shoot him.
4. Later on in the night things were dying down and I think those protecting the gas station were leaving.
5. Then we see the video of the kid being chased by the guy who confronted them earlier.
6. The kid turns around and shoots him in the head.
7. The kid calls the police, the police tell him where they are and to come to them.
8. On his way to the police he gets attacked again.
9. He gets knocked down, kicked in the head while on the ground by 1 individual, he shots at and misses.
10. He gets hit again in the head by a skateboard, considered a deadly weapon, the skateboard then grabs his AR.
11. The kid shoots and kills him.
12. Then another guy comes up to him and pulls a handgun on the kid.
13. Kid shoots him in the arm.
14. Kid gets up and goes to the police and turns himself in.
Not sure what happens after that.
ETA: The first guy shot in the head was taken to a hospital. Not sure if he died there or was DOA.
2. People tried to burn it down but him and others there prevented it.
3. The first guy he shot threaten them and then asked them to shoot him.
4. Later on in the night things were dying down and I think those protecting the gas station were leaving.
5. Then we see the video of the kid being chased by the guy who confronted them earlier.
6. The kid turns around and shoots him in the head.
7. The kid calls the police, the police tell him where they are and to come to them.
8. On his way to the police he gets attacked again.
9. He gets knocked down, kicked in the head while on the ground by 1 individual, he shots at and misses.
10. He gets hit again in the head by a skateboard, considered a deadly weapon, the skateboard then grabs his AR.
11. The kid shoots and kills him.
12. Then another guy comes up to him and pulls a handgun on the kid.
13. Kid shoots him in the arm.
14. Kid gets up and goes to the police and turns himself in.
Not sure what happens after that.
ETA: The first guy shot in the head was taken to a hospital. Not sure if he died there or was DOA.
The good folk of Kenosha won't likely look poorly upon what they consider a good Samaritan. And BTW, the good folk of Kenosha are appalled and embarrassed that they couldn't defend themselves and this teenager came to their aid. IOW, they are taking action themselves tonight. Last I saw over three hundred had signed up, presumably for armed patrols at entrances to subdivisions and the business district. Their town was invaded by out of state protesters. Local and state officials dropped the ball. Look for rooftop Kenoshans tonight.Quote:
Again, his purpose in going across state lines, with a weapon he was not allowed to carry, was to defend property and persons.
Don't try to project urban attitudes on a smallish town like Kenosha.
I would imagine that simply being there with the purpose of stopping the communist scum from looting and burning was enough to enrage the mob.Vader Was Framed said:BQ78 said:
Oh man you need to back up and read this thread first. He was chased by the first guy before he ever fired a shot.
Apologies for not having read the full thread. Wasn't claiming anything as fact. Read somewhere else someone was already dead before chase and considered it a possible scenario. Why was he being chased? Has that come out?
Someone was dead before the chase in the middle of the street where brave hero kid was attacked. They chased him and started attacking him because he shot one of their white trash commie friends who chased him and tried to violently attack him.Vader Was Framed said:BQ78 said:
Oh man you need to back up and read this thread first. He was chased by the first guy before he ever fired a shot.
Apologies for not having read the full thread. Wasn't claiming anything as fact. Read somewhere else someone was already dead before chase and considered it a possible scenario. Why was he being chased? Has that come out?
He was chased twice. Watching all of this live was insane. Hopefully this sparks more of this in riot hotbeds because just a few shots ended up resulting in immediate peace in the streets in Kenosha. We knew this was all it would take all along.
Featured Stories
See All
A&M at risk of undercut when undertaking trip to underrated Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
48:02
1d ago
4.2k
5:59
22h ago
2.2k
16:53
1d ago
3.2k