Crime Police Shoot Man In Back, Riots and Unrest Ensue

The_Renaissance said:
Except its all caught on video, from several angles. The shooter is seen fleeing a small mob of angry, violent rioters - he falls, is attached with a weapon, and defends himself. One of the rioters pulls a gun himself, meaning he also was armed. All the guy needs to do is play the video in court and he walks free - "I felt I was in danger and I was being violently pursued and attacked by armed men. I fell and was in a vulnerable position, I fired the gun I legally own".

Fucking soyboy cunts got what's coming to them! Consequences, you soft cunts!
Click to expand...
Can you link the full video?
 
skysolo said:
It is harder than you think to get a doctor to say that you have a disorder that you don't have. WTF? Try going to a doctor and telling him to diagnose you with something you don't have and see the look that he gives you.

You can only sue for legal fees when there are exceptions, such as, the other person acting in bad faith. Being sued doesn't mean you can just recoup the legal fees even if you win. Judge Judy again will tell you that.
  • This policy on lawyer fees is called the “American Rule.” In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that rule quite simply: “In the United States, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable lawyers' fee from the loser.”
The owner would have to prove that in court, where that dumb ass will be.
Click to expand...

Did I say you would win but it's worth the try, it's like the big companies slapp sue. As far as the doctor, I think shooting 3 people in that situation you can make a case for ptsd. Not saying you will get anything but it's all about throwing to see what sticks.

If the guy is smart they are already putting up s go fund account.
 
andnowweknow said:
If he's not a cop he has no business out mingling with a semi automatic rifle looking for confrontation.
Click to expand...


This is how sick this country has become. Its now not ok to be somewhere, that you have every legal right to be, with the means of defending yourself because you will obviously be assaulted by the mob if you are not one of them.

Its really a deranged way of thinking that these protesters should reasonably assume that they can assault and intimidate without threat of reprisal.
 
Corn Pop Hombre said:
it's kind of hard to sell the idea that he was "just protecting a business" when he's walking through the streets with an assault rifle, shooting people out on the street, not inside or outside of a business. If these business owners wanted to have a legitimate claim of self defense they should put armed gunmen in their stores that stay put inside their store. Period. When you're shooting people out on the street, you're no longer defending a business, now are ya bud?
Click to expand...

i'm not limiting to this specific incident. every case will have unique facts and circumstances and this one escalated. from the video, we see the gunman being chased and then opening fire, but we dont know what preceded that. maybe he instigated, maybe they instigated. given the ***ongoing riot***, i am inclined to believe that the rioters escalated, since they had no fear of chasing a man who was obviously armed with an AR. if a man with a rifle escalates, and you are just having a "peaceful protest," you would run from him, not chase and attack him. they chased him because they were the aggressors, thought he wouldnt do shit, and he called their bluff. my opinion, in absence of and until more direct evidence is available.

but there have been plenty of other cases of armed civilians guarding businesses. if you repeat that scenario enough times, there will be an escalation.

people need an option other than standing in or in front of their store, or in the street, in order to protect themselves from a violent mob. the mob can either stop (i.e., their enablers stop) or the police response needs to increase. otherwise, you get option 3, where we will see more civilian-on-civilian violence like this, including the usual confusion about who is at fault. with this level of chaos, and competing explanations, there is little to be learned.
 
HereticBD said:
Nobody had a reason to be there. It's an illegal riot.



He's 17, not 6. Did mommy and daddy watch over you until you were 35?



Why does that matter?



No, it was his life he was protecting.



Everything could be avoided, if certain people weren't taking every opportunity to riot and destroy cites. It is what it is. This is the anarchy you're fighting for. I guess I'll be the one to tell you that anarchy doesn't have a team, so don't cry when it doesn't go your way. This is what you radicals wanted. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Again you keep acting like I condone rioting? Why? I've said nothing of the sort. I'm asking where a 17 year olds parents are while he's wandering the street with a rifle and you respond by asking if my parents watched over me till I was 35? Over twice the age of 17? You're a moron. And my point is, he was out there with a rifle for no reason during a riot. And on top of that if he was 17 its illegal to open carry in that state. You're just dumb man. I can't help you. Keep taking out your anger for rioters on people that have never condoned rioting. You're doing a great job
 
GiTGuD said:
These larpers are far and I mean far from Rooftop Koreans....Rooftop Koreans did what they did, 100% out of necessity...They chose to be smart about it and get on rooftops to defend their stores....They weren't walking around the streets where they could be easily attacked by rioters.
Click to expand...

...it started on the streets and yes, they were in shootouts ON the streets. lolz @ being this willfully ignorant. you're citing them as an example and you didn't even bother looking up what happened. ffs, man.
 
Willy Knuckles said:
Again you keep acting like I condone rioting? Why? I've said nothing of the short. I'm asking where a 17 year olds parents are while he's wandering the street with a rifle and you respond by asking if my parents watched over me till I was 35? Over twice the ago of 17? You're a moron. And my point is, he was out there with a rifle for no reason during a riot. And on top of that if he was 17 its illegal to open carry in that state. You're just dumb man. I can't help you. Keep taking out your anger for rioters on people that have never condoned rioting. You're doing a great job
Click to expand...

he's out there because the "adults" in office wont do their jobs.
 
Willy Knuckles said:
Again you keep acting like I condone rioting? Why? I've said nothing of the sort. I'm asking where a 17 year olds parents are while he's wandering the street with a rifle and you respond by asking if my parents watched over me till I was 35? Over twice the ago of 17? You're a moron. And my point is, he was out there with a rifle for no reason during a riot. And on top of that if he was 17 its illegal to open carry in that state. You're just dumb man. I can't help you. Keep taking out your anger for rioters on people that have never condoned rioting. You're doing a great job
Click to expand...

lolz @ trying to hard to demonize the guy for not being a dead victim that you went on a tirade because of his skin color... and then his age.
 
Willy Knuckles said:
Again you keep acting like I condone rioting? Why? I've said nothing of the short. I'm asking where a 17 year olds parents are while he's wandering the street with a rifle and you respond by asking if my parents watched over me till I was 35? Over twice the ago of 17? You're a moron. And my point is, he was out there with a rifle for no reason during a riot. And on top of that if he was 17 its illegal to open carry in that state. You're just dumb man. I can't help you. Keep taking out your anger for rioters on people that have never condoned rioting. You're doing a great job
Click to expand...

You seem to be highlighting the fact that the shooter is 17 years old. 17 year olds are old enough to get deployed overseas. They don't get a second more of extra training than 35 year olds who enlist.
 
Who in the right mind would charge anyone with a gun?

If I lived in the US, If I had to, I'd be walking around with a holstered pistol, regardless of if it were licenced or not.

Nobody should be unarmed during this time, and that is why the military should be sent in.
 
And another one bites the dust. I have to say, this forum seems to be really hard on the psyche of many posters (including some mods). These people are in need of an intervention
 
dirtypablo said:
At what point do you morons hold people accountable for their own actions? If the rioters hadn't attacked the guys with guns, they would still be alive. Its that fucking simple.
Click to expand...


It's funny how they were all gearing up to stomp that guy into a coma....you could see the excitement in the crowd like they had a blank check to dish out violence. He would have been the latest viral video of a life changing mob beating had he not defended himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,188
Messages
55,542,501
Members
174,823
Latest member
Zygmunt

Share this page

Back
Top