Dude shoots attacking rioters
144,859 Views |
1321 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by will25u
The Fife said: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
It's an error, he has two DOB listed on there. One says 1993, which looks more accurate.
GeorgiAg said:
Missing skateboard 7/10
Absolutely you can go almost anywhere in America with out a reason....but when you shoot someone, the DA and jury are going to look at events that lead up to the shooting.zoneag said: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?"....
You know they Atlanta child murderer was convicted partially because he was caught on a random road at night and had 'no reason to be there'.
Are you an attorney ? If not I think I'll put my money on Aggiehawg's analysis of the situation.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?"....
None of this is backed up by any of the vids I've seen. If anything it was the opposite. Guy is seen chatting with police and was relaxed. I don't see him at all in the vid from the gas station where the three guys that were shot were instigating violence and trying to bash windows and set cars on fire. Some of the gun guys in that vid seemed way more amped up than the shooter. And after shooting the first guy he comes back around the car to render aid and call 911. In none of the vids I've seen did he take a menacing stance towards any protesters. He never once advanced on the rioters and he only fired on those that were a legit and immediate threat. The statements that he and the others were there to protect property and not confront protesters seems to be legit. If he had wanted to he could have filled the Kenosha morgue with 20 or more rioters.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.
Makes me wonder if the kid, who was interacting with all three earlier, noticed the one armed man had a gun or maybe was even brandishing it earlier so when he tried the hands up, don't shoot route he didn't fall for it.aggiebman said:
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.
Quite the discussion on one armed guys friends page for any who Facebook.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1500025136853462&id=100005379694551&sfnsn=mo&extid=8jtqMiIi37gB9845
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1500025136853462&id=100005379694551&sfnsn=mo&extid=8jtqMiIi37gB9845
I wan't disagreeing with him.Rattler12 said:Are you an attorney ? If not I think I'll put my money on Aggiehawg's analysis of the situation.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?"....
The truly sad thing about the situation is that more of the "protesters" didn't get dropped off for morgue services.
Well if the bald guy thought his life was in danger he had a weird way of showing it, chasing a man with a gun and throwing some type of object at him and trying to beat him down.Vader Was Framed said:aggiebman said:
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.
Right. Looks like a good shoot upon being chased, especially the last two. But I'm considering what started the initial confrontation/chase. Kind of a who thought their life was in danger first kind of consideration. Is it plausible they tried to rush him and take his weapon? Again, many actions probably took place prior to the chase. I'm not sure of the legal implications.
Have the deceased been publicly identified?
better save that for the big stuff.Vader Was Framed said:
Just a flesh wound. Doesn't he have some saline spray?
Kind of amazed how this kid survived all that, pretty calmly
I think it's pretty obvious that these bumbling militia groups are full of freaking morons. If you're going to defend your property or Someone else's, that's fine, but do what the rooftop Koreans did. You don't mingle with the rioters, especially when they are openly antagonistic towards you. Plus you have guy like jumpy mcjumperson wondering around with bolt action rifles. The situation was destined to end in violence.
Hope this is trueaggiehawg said: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.
You can see red shirt guy going after people in that second tweet.
LOL. Police could profile people in the late 70s and early 80s.Quote:
Absolutely you can go almost anywhere in America with out a reason....but when you shoot someone, the DA and jury are going to look at events that lead up to the shooting.
You know they Atlanta child murderer was convicted partially because he was caught on a random road at night and had 'no reason to be there'.
Then age is 50 / 51.ABATTBQ11 said:
DOB is 1969
Say what you want about yellow shirt guy but when he and his buddies were being aggressively approached and even touched/shoved, he did his best to make peace and even ended up talking and hugging it out with one of the female protesters who calmed down once he stated that he wants the same things as her and that they are just there to protect the business from being destroyed (something like that). He seemed like a pretty dweeby guy amped up on adrenaline to some extent, but the mob was not approaching these guys peacefully at all and I can understand being on edge or "twitchy" in that situation. They were using flag/banner poles as javelins and throwing other objects at them. Also pushed a burning dumpster at them.
The rooftop koreans weren't just on rooftops btw. And it would have been stupid to remain exclusively on the rooftop of this building when the violent communist mob could just ignite it in a matter of minutes or seconds imo.
The rooftop koreans weren't just on rooftops btw. And it would have been stupid to remain exclusively on the rooftop of this building when the violent communist mob could just ignite it in a matter of minutes or seconds imo.
The TC Jester said:
Say what you want about yellow shirt guy but when he and his buddies were being aggressively approached and even touched/shoved, he did his best to make peace and even ended up talking and hugging it out with one of the female protesters who calmed down once he stated that he wants the same things as her and that they are just there to protect the business from being destroyed (something like that). He seemed like a pretty dweeby guy amped up on adrenaline to some extent, but the mob was not approaching these guys peacefully at all and I can understand being on edge or "twitchy" in that situation. They were using flag/banner poles as javelins and throwing other objects at them. Also pushed a burning dumpster at them.
The rooftop koreans weren't just on rooftops btw. And it would have been stupid to remain exclusively on the rooftop of this building when the violent communist mob could just ignite it in a matter of minutes or seconds imo.
You can't ignite a building if you get shot first.
Responsible gun owners have a duty to deescalate and avoid potentially volatile situations. Their presence on the streets only antagonized the the rioters and wasn't helpful of their stated goals (defending property).
Defend the property from inside or on the roof and unleash hell on anyone trying to break in or burn the building down.
The gas station isn't there anymore? Must have missed that.Quote:
Responsible gun owners have a duty to deescalate and avoid potentially volatile situations. Their presence on the streets only antagonized the the rioters and wasn't helpful of their stated goals (defending property).
SirLurksALot said:The TC Jester said:
Say what you want about yellow shirt guy but when he and his buddies were being aggressively approached and even touched/shoved, he did his best to make peace and even ended up talking and hugging it out with one of the female protesters who calmed down once he stated that he wants the same things as her and that they are just there to protect the business from being destroyed (something like that). He seemed like a pretty dweeby guy amped up on adrenaline to some extent, but the mob was not approaching these guys peacefully at all and I can understand being on edge or "twitchy" in that situation. They were using flag/banner poles as javelins and throwing other objects at them. Also pushed a burning dumpster at them.
The rooftop koreans weren't just on rooftops btw. And it would have been stupid to remain exclusively on the rooftop of this building when the violent communist mob could just ignite it in a matter of minutes or seconds imo.
You can't ignite a building if you get shot first.
Responsible gun owners have a duty to deescalate and avoid potentially volatile situations. Their presence on the streets only antagonized the the rioters and wasn't helpful of their stated goals (defending property).
Defend the property from inside or on the roof and unleash hell on anyone trying to break in or burn the building down.
Yeah IDGAF. If you are a rioter getting "antagonized" by the fact you can loot or burn **** down. GROW THE **** UP OR GET SHOT.
Also how do you that with a gas station? To quote Ramius, "somethings don't respond well to bullets."Quote:
Defend the property from inside or on the roof and unleash hell on anyone trying to break in or burn the building down.
aggiehawg said:The gas station isn't there anymore? Must have missed that.Quote:
Responsible gun owners have a duty to deescalate and avoid potentially volatile situations. Their presence on the streets only antagonized the the rioters and wasn't helpful of their stated goals (defending property).
Weren't they there to protect the car dealership? That's what they said in some of the videos on twitter.
But I thought the protesters were peaceful?
So weird that if they were peaceful protesters then why were they creating a volatile situation where there had already been arson, looting, and beatings?
So weird that if they were peaceful protesters then why were they creating a volatile situation where there had already been arson, looting, and beatings?
Red shirt was the most aggressive guy in this video. From earlier photos, all of the guys who got shot/killed were in this little scene somewhere. I don't see the shooter himself in this video so red shirt must have encountered him later and judging by his amped up short man syndrome attitude towards these guys at this gas station, it wouldn't surprise me at all that he instigated something with the shooter, the shooter may have said or done something back and then short red shirt started chasing him down.SirLurksALot said:aggiebman said:
You can see red shirt guy going after people in that second tweet.
The entire group of rioters was going after them. I don't know how long this was before the shooting.
hbtheduce said:SirLurksALot said:The TC Jester said:
Say what you want about yellow shirt guy but when he and his buddies were being aggressively approached and even touched/shoved, he did his best to make peace and even ended up talking and hugging it out with one of the female protesters who calmed down once he stated that he wants the same things as her and that they are just there to protect the business from being destroyed (something like that). He seemed like a pretty dweeby guy amped up on adrenaline to some extent, but the mob was not approaching these guys peacefully at all and I can understand being on edge or "twitchy" in that situation. They were using flag/banner poles as javelins and throwing other objects at them. Also pushed a burning dumpster at them.
The rooftop koreans weren't just on rooftops btw. And it would have been stupid to remain exclusively on the rooftop of this building when the violent communist mob could just ignite it in a matter of minutes or seconds imo.
You can't ignite a building if you get shot first.
Responsible gun owners have a duty to deescalate and avoid potentially volatile situations. Their presence on the streets only antagonized the the rioters and wasn't helpful of their stated goals (defending property).
Defend the property from inside or on the roof and unleash hell on anyone trying to break in or burn the building down.
Yeah IDGAF. If you are a rioter getting "antagonized" by the fact you can loot or burn **** down. GROW THE **** UP OR GET SHOT.
Fine, but don't put yourself in a poor tactical position. If you wanna go out there and mingle with the rioters while armed, then go ahead. Just don't be upset if you find yourself in a situation with only bad outcomes.
They charged the 17 year old with murder.
My pronouns are AFUERA/AHORA!
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
23h ago
2.2k
16:53
1d ago
3.2k