The officers even told the terrorists they were proud to have them and really appreciated them. And then they let the shooter walk after he told them he had killed someone.
Almost as if the police are sending a message to the protesters.
Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
- Status
Almost as if the police are sending a message to the protesters.
Well to nobody's surprise, there's a good chance that the police are infiltrated by right wing terrorists.
'Wild and Timely' Report Details Infiltration of Far-Right Militias and White Supremacist Groups in US Police Departments
The study comes amid unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the latest high-profile police shooting of a Black man and the shooting deaths of two protesters by an alleged far-right militia member.
www.commondreams.org
I haven't seen the photos other than possibly one on 4chan in passing, but they can do some damn impressive things with internal fixation (if the bullet even hit bone) and reconstructive surgery these days. If the guy was lucky and had his arm angled right it's entirely possible it could've been a glancing hit and essentially one hell of a nasty flesh wound, he'll probably end up with reduced mobility/strength in that arm and a nasty scar if that's what happened.
Not trying to make a Black Knight gag with that last bit, either, you ever see any of those "medical marvel" specials on TV or magazines or whatever? Modern medicine and innate human trauma resistance can do insane things. I've seen at least two stories of people surviving full impalement through the torso by assorted objects (and not small ones, I think one was a fencepost). Or the skydiver who had a double failure with her main and backup chutes only partially opening. Full-on High Speed Dirt, hit a paved parking lot at something like 50mph. Broke fucking near every bone in her body and spent a year or more in hospital, but made a full recovery in the end.
I wouldn't write a load of messages on social media about how I was going to pwn some rioters as part of a militia defence force, take an assault rifle and go into another jurisdiction I had no connection to and hadn't been invited to, and then with no sanction from or co-ordination with the professionals who oversee public order, actively face down protestors without relevant training in and suitable equipment for crowd control and conflict de-escalation.
Thus I absolutely trust a mob not to kill me, by way of being nowhere near it and not trying to coerce it.
I think everyone agrees with that. The question is about what would you do if you had done all those dumb things, and were being chased by a mob. Would you under that particular hypothetical let em catch you?
If you move the goalposts into a position where I am already a domestic terrorist, then yes, I would in fact commit a terror offence.
Not moving any goalpoast, the question here is just a general "if a mob is chasing you because you did something bad, and you think you may get seriously injured or killed because of that bad thing you did, which you know yourself is bad and are fearful thanks to that knowledge, if that is your situation, what is reasonable to do moving forward?"
Nobody is saying the rednecks playing Rambo did the right thing to begin with.
The ones moving the goalpoast are the ones talking about whether being there in the first place was a good idea or not. Nobody is talking about that bit. Everyone agrees it was a bad idea.
In other words, you assume all of us really are that stupid.
Culpability for the deployment of lethal force in a situation ultimately has to rest with the individual who introduced the possibility of lethal force in the first place.
If I shot someone who drew their gun on me first, that's probably their fault.
If I shot someone who I had no reason to suspect was armed, that's probably my fault.
If I hold someone at gunpoint and they then attempt to assault me in self defence and I shoot them in return, that's still my fault, because they wouldn't have assaulted me without me threatening them first. The fact that I shot them to protect myself is not relevant because it was my action that instigated violence.
If I shot someone who drew their gun on me first, that's probably their fault.
If I shot someone who I had no reason to suspect was armed, that's probably my fault.
If I hold someone at gunpoint and they then attempt to assault me in self defence and I shoot them in return, that's still my fault, because they wouldn't have assaulted me without me threatening them first. The fact that I shot them to protect myself is not relevant because it was my action that instigated violence.
Yes, but because I wouldn't do those dumb things, I wouldn't be in that situation.
That situation is then so incredibly extreme, and so beyond the experiences of just about anyone here, it is effectively beyond our capabilities to predict how we would respond. Would we panic? Would we try to escape? Would we try to talk them down? Would we surrender? Would we curl up in a ball and hope they go easy? Would we try to fight back? Could we really bear to pull that trigger and end someone's life?
Who the fuck knows. No-one knows - except maybe those few here who may have been caught by a hostile mob in real life, or have relevant military / law enforcement training and experience to prepare them.
The other thing is, they're not just "dumb decisions". This wasn't like taking a short-cut down a dark alley and accidentally getting mugged. This was proactively seeking confrontation: people need to take a lot responsibility for that.
Right, so what happened before he shot the first guy in the head, was that someone else had a pistol and fired in the air, and then the guy who got shot in the head ran towards the kid aggressively moments after the shot was fired. I don't think it's domestic terrorism to fire back after someone else already started firing.
You have two armed groups in this scenario, not just the kid who introduced the gun. Both groups introduced guns here. And we don't know the specifics of whether or not the guy who fired in the air owned his gun legally or not.
If someone is brandishing guns aggressively, but doesn't shoot, and you start shooting first, you are more wrong than they are, even if they were trying to terrorize you.
Yes, agreed, nobody knows really what they'd do. So we can agree that the things that lead up to that situation were the kid's fault and he should be punished, but after this situation was as it was it's a different deal and not the same as just a school shooter or something like that, which is the position I maintained here from the start.
Last edited:
How does this make him not responsible for kill 2 people?
The kid still brought the gun. You don't seem to think that's a detail worth considering.
Translation: If a white person terrorizes you with a gun, let them.
This is everything you really wanted to say, which basically translates to, "This kid shouldn't be punished."
Why was he there with a gun in the first place?
It's not like he was out for a Sunday stroll, rifle on his back like always, stopped by a Dairy Queen for an ice cream cone, and suddenly, an angry, liberal mob descended upon him.
He went there for conflict.
He found it.
He's not a cop; it wasn't his job or responsibility to get involved.
He killed people.
You mean let's divorce actions from their consequences as a basis of jurisprudence?
That's sure to end well.
There were multiple parties who brought guns, not just the kid. He doesn't bear the entirety of the responsibility there, only his own part. If you wanna say it's 51% then sure I'm fine with that.
And everyone there was white, both the kid and the people he shot, so I dunno what it has to do with him being white.
And he was still the one who killed people.
Take the side of racists, people are going to assume you're a racist.
So he was in the wrong because he didn't let himself get killed for provoking people into initiating a conflict with him? Is this the standard we have here?
You do not have the right to initiate an attack on someone because he merely provoked you, you are in the wrong.
This is like the thing with people who are against imperialism because of the country who won out in the end, not being cognizant of the fact that the alternative there isn't a utopia but rather a world where simply another country won and had their empire instead. This mythical world where nobody gets conquered and people live in peace doesn't exist in this situation, it only exists in your imagination. There is no world where the kid doesn't shoot the people shooting in the air and rushing him where he is left unharmed.
If a racist says diet and exercise is good, and you agree with that, are you to be assumed a racist for agreeing with one? Your standard makes no sense.
No he was in the wrong because he brought an illegal firearm across state lines to pick a fight and murdered 2 people. You simply choose not to acknowledge this.
He was in the wrong for bringing the weapons, but not for how he reacted because of the way people acted due to him having them. Nuance.
- Status