Reply With Quote
Literally turn around and call the police that are walking and driving all around you.
It's amazing that there's any other answer in some people's minds.
As always, it depends. If someone is burning property or looting, then generally the best answer is to back away. If someone is committing arson and there is an innocent person in the building, then intervening makes sense. The law has a rule and then exceptions. If a guy is throwing molotovs in the homes of residents, yes you call the police, but if you have a gun, you don't shoot him to save several innocent lives? If you were able to get your hands on the Sandy Hook shooter, you don't do it?
Every situation is different. That said, the 17 year old kid was not in these situations and should not have tried to be a lethal batman to protect property that didn't belong to him.
That said, blood is on the governor's hands. He declined federal help and only sent in a third of the national guard he had at his disposal. He's getting a free ride in this discussion and he is the one that could have stopped this violence and enforced the curfew he set.
17yo Illinois kid drives 15 miles to Wisconsin town, on night #3 of highly-charged protests. He wants to protect Wisconsin property, so he brings an illegal assault rifle. This sounds like a great idea, please proceed.
He surprisingly gets in a fight with someone with much larger muscles, and shoots him in the head.
The rest of the crowd identifies him as the shooter, chases him down to attempt to disarm him so he doesn’t kill anyone else. Kid shoots and kills another life in disarming attempt. Another is shot in the arm.
Did those protestors deserve to die for being out after curfew, having a sexual offense in their criminal record, potentially destroying property, or attempting to disarm someone who had just ended a life? No.
Did Jacob Blake deserve to get shot 9 times for approaching his car, even with a knife (KNIFE!) at the bottom of his driver side? No.
PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME, after due process of the law. In the heat of the moment, disarming tactics should be equivalent to the threat.
These people didn’t deserve what was handed to them, and it’s been going on for centuries. If Trump supporters really want “law and order”, they would agree.
Actually the people attacking him caused the great emotional damage he'll suffer as consequence of being forced to shoot him. Leftists painting him as a racist/white supremacist based on nothing will also be a problem. Sadly some these people are politicians.
This kid was an idiot. When you are that age you are looking for conflict which he was seeking by showing up there with a gun.
He didn't do anything wrong with so I'm not sure why you'd make this comment. There were younger Americans in WW2 tbh
Just to clarify, was it an illegal assault rifle or what it just illegal for him to have the assault rifle in public because he was 17 and the minimum age is 18? Just want clarification because the way it is written, it sounds like he illegally obtained the gun or that owning such a gun was illegal and I haven't read that and that makes a difference on some level.
It's up in the air whether he committed murder. We don't know enough. But I think we can all agree he was better off staying in Illinois and not coming down uninvited and armed with a weapon that he was not trained to use in that setting. He did some things that were very wrong. He may have committed murder, but we don't know enough yet to know if it was self defense or homicide.
Yup, they were trying to kill an innocent kid. Good thing he came out on top.
This is the guy that got his arm shot that regrets not killing him. He has his gun on him in the image. The kid would have been killed if he waited any longer. Also there were people in the politics forum telling me this shot was a bad shot. They were saying he "had his hands up" and "was moving towards the shot victim to help him". These people are very biased. They can't see reality.
Now where exactly did you get that information? I'm more of a democratic socialist so no thanks on the communism stuff.
He traveled an entire 20 minutes. Let's stop acting like he drove across the country. And who gives a damn about being invited? Nobody regular citizen is trained for the "being attacked by a mob" setting but he seemed trained. Every thing we know indicates self defense but yes something could change.
Exactly what I thought.
The police are overwhelmed by the BLM mobs. Maybe the media and politicians should stop shielding and encouraging them. Maybe they should accept Federal assistance when offered.
America summed up in two lines. What's wrong with you people
I didn't know it was 20 minutes away. But I still think we can all agree that a 17 year old teenager armed with a semi automatic rifle should not have shown up to a mob/riot to take on the role left to police officers. You are right that no regular citizen is trained to do that, but that is also why he shouldn't have been there. From the footage, I think there is an argument that he was under attack and that some of it might have been self defense, but we don't know what was said and we don't know what happened outside of those videos. But you can't expect a 17 year old to make good decisions with a gun when he is in a high conflict area like that. He should not have gotten involved and I think we can all agree on that.
So much bull in this post.
Why is it so hard for some people to objectively analyze situations? Are y'all really that swayed by political affiliation?
Gets in a fight?
Correction: the guy who got shot threw a bottle at the 17 yr old and then charged him from behind. Guy that got shot was 5'3" btw.
Correction: 17 yr old called 911 after shooting first guy and was running towards police and away from the mob. There were dozens of people on the streets that he could've targeted if he was looking to kill more. The only people he shot at were people who charged him and posed a threat.The rest of the crowd identifies him as the shooter, chases him down to attempt to disarm him so he doesn’t kill anyone else. Kid shoots and kills another life in disarming attempt. Another is shot in the arm.
Deserve is a strong word.Did those protestors deserve to die for being out after curfew, having a sexual offense in their criminal record, potentially destroying property, or attempting to disarm someone who had just ended a life? No.
They're not victims though. They played their role in their deaths.
Its easy to say that from the comfort of your home. If I'm a cop, get told earlier in the day that a fellow cop got shot by a guy who went back into their car, then I find myself in a similar situation with a non-compliant individual... I might be on edge too. Not to mention kidnapping of kids was a possibility.Did Jacob Blake deserve to get shot 9 times for approaching his car, even with a knife (KNIFE!) at the bottom of his driver side? No.
PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME, after due process of the law. In the heat of the moment, disarming tactics should be equivalent to the threat.
These people didn’t deserve what was handed to them, and it’s been going on for centuries. If Trump supporters really want “law and order”, they would agree.
I don't know if the cop made the right call or not. I just think the situation is a lot more complex than "look at cops targeting innocent black people why don't they love us". The way the left media paints it, you'd think this could happen to any black person just because of the color of their skin. In reality, its usually happening to people that are first and foremost criminals.
Putting someone like Elijah McClain, who from what I've seen truly was an innocent victim, in the same category as some of these thugs is an insult to Elijah, imo.
Not every black person that gets shot by a cop is a victim.
Is it group think just because you don't agree with a large contingent?
You can be a victim and criminal at the same time.
If the players had decided to walk out on the season, how do you think it would've played if the owners demanded that they come back and finish out the playoffs? The owners claiming that they were behind them but not really being behind them would've caused a backlash. The NBA looks pretty good now, standing behind their players and letting them decide how to proceed.
Other leagues have taken note. As for the CBA, its unclear whether they owners will opt out it. They and the players association have a pretty good working relationship. Are they going to blow it up because of a pandemic?
To shed some outsider's perspective on this: most people ITT are really missing the point. You can go back and forth over whether it was self defense or not, the cir stances regarding the shooting all day long... But how can anyone really try to justify a seventeen-year-old boy having access to, and being allowed to freely roam with, a literal assault rifle? Think about this again... A 17-year-old. Not even out of highscool. With access to an ASSAULT RIFLE. How can you gloss over this major, ridiculous, issue? I feel like Americans always do this though; every time there's a shooting incident, each side tries to spin the narrative, who's right vs who's wrong or who's to blame... Nobody questions why the shootings can happen in the first place. The response to this shooting should be unanimous disgust at the state of the US' gun policies and checks (or lack thereof) on who can access guns, where they can have access to or carry them, and the culture regarding gun worship in general.
I don't care whether this boy goes to jail or not... He's not even an adult. Literal teenager, confused, malleable, rageful - only in the US, he has access to weapons of mass murder instead of taking his anger out on videogames or his parents or whatever, like teenagers in the rest of the world do. I know, second amendment, gun rights, all that yadda-yadda... How good is it when you have cases like this on the regular? I don't see Americans talking about this like they should, and frankly I don't know if they're ready for that conversation.
Yes, let’s objectively analyze:So much bull in this post.
Why is it so hard for some people to objectively analyze situations? Are y'all really that swayed by political affiliation?
Gets in a fight?
Correction: the guy who got shot threw a bottle at the 17 yr old and then charged him from behind. Guy that got shot was 5'3" btw.
Correction: 17 yr old called 911 after shooting first guy and was running towards police and away from the mob. There were dozens of people on the streets that he could've targeted if he was looking to kill more. The only people he shot at were people who charged him and posed a threat.
Deserve is a strong word.
They're not victims though. They played their role in their deaths.
Its easy to say that from the comfort of your home. If I'm a cop, get told earlier in the day that a fellow cop got shot by a guy who went back into their car, then I find myself in a similar situation with a non-compliant individual... I might be on edge too. Not to mention kidnapping of kids was a possibility.
I don't know if the cop made the right call or not. I just think the situation is a lot more complex than "look at cops targeting innocent black people why don't they love us
Rational people don’t need an AR-15 shot to head to defend against a bottle and two arms.
Rational people would try to disarm an armed person who just shot someone in the head, and wouldn’t know or mattered if that shooter had called 911 or anyone for that matter, he just shot someone in the head. Rational people would feel their lives are in extreme danger. The ones that were ballsy enough to try to stop him got killed or shot as well.
Rational people wouldn’t equate these victims actions to justifying their instant death penalty. “They played their role in their deaths”, yeah so did the people going to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11, what is wrong with you?
And from the comfort of your own home, you get to paint broad strokes about the probability of why a black man warranted 9 gunshots to the back because he was “probably a criminal.”
The Kyle situation is ing stupid. The Jacob Blake situation is complex I agree, because blacks have been put in the ter for centuries and are still living with the economic and racial consequences today. But the simple ask of better training and less use of extreme force in non-warranted situations to prevent loss of life is as basic and rational as it gets. That’s just my opinion..
It’s illegal for a 17yo to have one, but regardless I agree with your thoughts. None of this is going to get meaningfully better until the guns are gone, on both sides. 2 sides both having access to lethal weapons are simply going to continue to create these scenarios, the plain physics of it all.
This is true, you can be a open carrying a firearm while underage, a misdemeanor, when numerous thugs try to assault you...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions