Jump to content

So the shooter was a Trumper...


DBP66

Recommended Posts

Just now, Atticus Finch said:

He was charged with murder.

He's going to be tried for murder.

So it's not a lie to claim that he committed double murder.

Every single person that has ever come under such scrutiny acted in self-defense.

It's an amazing 100% record.

Truly remarkable.

 

So people charged with murder are never proven innocent, Andy? 🤡

You're doing great!

LMAO

What a stupid tool...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

This is so predictable.

A kid drives 20 miles away from his home to "protect himself."

This kid will be lauded as a hero by the concha types.

The "law and order" party will try their hardest to get him off scott free.

When I'm done catching up on these 7 pages of posts, I will post videos proving that all three shootings were self defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, concha said:

 

Andy whines like the bitch he is about people mentioning when folks are taking drugs or reaching for weapons as if they haven't been proven to have been on drugs or were reaching where a weapon was despite be ordered not to.

Andy is a pathetic clown. 🤡

 

 

 

I fully agree that force was necessary in regard to Blake.

When I first saw the footage my initial thought was "he looks like he's marching to his car to get a gun."

But that doesn't mean you shoot the guy 7 times in the back. There's a difference between properly using force (there was 2 cops within arms length of him, tackle him, shoot him in the legs with a double-tap, etc) - Blake walked himself into force being necessary but damn...7 shots is just shit policing there.

Cops should have never let him get that close to begin with, they lost the situation from the start and compensated by emptying the entire clip into the guy.

Poor police work, blatant excessive use of force (though use of force was justifiable), and yes Blake is an idiot that should have just obeyed the command and sorted the situation with a cooler head.

I just don't see any way to justify 7 shots in the back when the police were literally standing right next to the guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Atticus Finch said:

concha does though.

It's always a knee-jerk to whatever position is to the right of Rush Limbaugh.

I don't ever know if it's conditioning that makes him do that or if he really believes what he's saying.

There doesn't seem to be a moderated side to him at all, no room to sort through what's going on with the moving parts.

Makes the thread get boring real quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Atticus Finch said:

It's an example.

Use Terrence Crutcher instead.

You've made it very clear that if someone is unarmed but "reaching" then the appropriate punishment is to be shot to death.

Or if they're on drugs.

 

So no one you know of was shot 7 times in the back for being on drugs.

You just continue to make shit up.

Ans all I've said is that if you have resisted arrest, have a warrant out for a violent act, are ignoring the police and their orders, and reach somewhere where you might have a weapon, the police are within their rights to use deadly force.

Your desperate efforts to avoid tying shootings to the actual stupid and dangerous acts the stupid people are responsible for is glaring, Andy.

Here are questions Andy never asks himself:

"Why didn't the cop shoot the dumbass when he was resisting arrest?  Why didn't the cop shoot him when he refused to stop and obey repeated lawful orders? Why didn't it happen until the dumbass created a situation where there was a reasonable threat that the dumbass could be reaching for a weapon?"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slotback Right said:

You can't deny that he was running away, in fear of his life, then turned and shot in self defense.

In fear for his life?

You are seriously deranged.

The kid drove 20 miles to be a part of that.

You can't do that, and bring your AR-15, and then claim self-defense because somebody who didn't look armed was running towards you.

You're just another of the 100% self-defense arguers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DownSouth said:

 

I fully agree that force was necessary in regard to Blake.

When I first saw the footage my initial thought was "he looks like he's marching to his car to get a gun."

But that doesn't mean you shoot the guy 7 times in the back. There's a difference between properly using force (there was 2 cops within arms length of him, tackle him, shoot him in the legs with a double-tap, etc) - Blake walked himself into force being necessary but damn...7 shots is just shit policing there.

Cops should have never let him get that close to begin with, they lost the situation from the start and compensated by emptying the entire clip into the guy.

Poor police work, blatant excessive use of force (though use of force was justifiable), and yes Blake is an idiot that should have just obeyed the command and sorted the situation with a cooler head.

I just don't see any way to justify 7 shots in the back when the police were literally standing right next to the guy. 

 

I don't disagree that 7 shots was excessive.

That said, that he was shot at all was his own fault.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slotback Right said:

Okay! Time to get real.

First deadly shot:

 

 

That doesn't really show what lead up to the chase.

More info is needed to understand what caused that.

Could've been unprovoked (though anyone walking around at that time with a semi auto rifle will look threatening, which will put others on edge), but he could've just as easily made a threatening movement with his weapon or made a spoken threat of some sort - which flips who was acting in self-defense.

Doesn't look like the guy chasing him had a weapon on him so the kid wasn't really in any danger of death...maybe he was under threat of great bodily harm (dude would've needed to seize the weapon) but nothing about that is clear.

Not sure how you're so easily convinced of your already solidified notion based only on that video.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Slotback Right said:

You can't deny that he was running away,

Walter Scott. Running away from a cop. Shot in the back. Justified.

This clown. Running away from unarmed person. Shot him in chest. Justified.

The people making these arguments might have a tad bit of credibility if they didn't always come to the same conclusion even given different circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...