Jump to content

So the shooter was a Trumper...


DBP66

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, DownSouth said:

When you have NO other info other than someone is dead and the shooter is RIGHT here - you either react to try and stop him, or you run for cover.

He wants the precedent of armed right-winger killing what he perceives as looting left-winger.

That's the short and skinny of it.

He will say anything to justify their killing.

Period.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DownSouth said:

It's ridiculous that you keep framing the skateboard guy and the pistol guy as unprovoked attackers. Say whatever you want about their criminal records or lack of character, but to call them unprovoked attackers is a really dishonest way to portray that interaction.

That's perfect because concha is really dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

😄

What the fuck?

This is so bad that even concha should be embarrassed.

So it's a self-defense argument until it becomes as "killed two people to help others" argument.

It's good to see that even you're hedging the self-defense argument.

 

The kid had earlier been helping to paint damaged businesses.

And your little word games like "killed two people to help others" aren't cute.

Andy, I know you like to argue, but I'll just slap your sorry dishonest ass on ignore again.

The only person suggesting he "killed to help others" is YOU. 🤡

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

If you have a criminal record the punishment for that is execution by a civilian.

Cool.

Again, why can't you just say that.

Guess what? This kid was breaking the law by even being there armed. He breaks the law and then kills two people. Barely a cross word for him. But the dead guys are criminals and thugs and (insert word).

Typical performance by concha.

 

OK.

Andy,  I'm done.

There is no point engaging with a jackass that just feels the need to misquote and lie on an industrial scale like you have done for the last day or two.

If you don't believe people have a right to defend themselves, then that is up to you.

Done here.

Go find someone else to misquote and hurl lies at. 👍

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, concha said:

You act like there has to be some quota for the cop or kid to be the bad guy. 🤡

No, I do believe in consequences for actions.

If death was the consequence for those two men then that's unfortunate but it's reality.

But the kid also has to face consequences for his criminality.

You don't think so.

Again, we get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DownSouth said:

 

I'm not here to say they were and are good people. [Based on there criminal records that would be debatable at best]  It doesn't seem they are. At the very last they're incredibly flawed people that shouldn't have been out there. But in this case it is irrelevant.

This kid ran into the area they were in - they didn't ask for him to run in with that rifle after having blown a dude's head off. [Very arguably in self-defense, the guy who was shot having been very aggressive with armed people trying to defend businesses earlier in the day. ] They didn't have any idea what was going on behind them other than people were screaming he'd killed someone, and he quite obviously had a rifle with him. - They were NOT privy to any other information. They didn't know he is 17. They didn't know he's there to "protect property only." [OK. They also did not notice that he was NOT wandering around randomly shooting at people.  And none of what you has said obviates the kid's right to self-defense. "Skateboard guy" was videoed with "head blown off" earlier in the day talking shit to armed business defenders]

He's an active shooter, [No.  He stopped shooting the after stopping the earlier threat] with a monster weapon in clear view, within feet of them; with people behind him screaming that a person was just killed by him seconds earlier.

Are you telling me that if you're in public and you hear people screaming "active shooter, he killed someone" and a guy with a rifle comes running your way and people are behind him saying he's the shooter that you aren't either 1) reaching for your gun or a weapon (like a skateboard) or 2) running away for cover.  [Who knows? I'd hope I would notice he was not shooting and act accordingly. Regardless, he has the right to defend himself as he did earlier.] 

When you have NO other info other than someone is dead and the shooter is RIGHT here - you either react to try and stop him, or you run for cover. 

It's ridiculous that you keep framing the skateboard guy and the pistol guy as unprovoked attackers. Say whatever you want about their criminal records or lack of character, but to call them unprovoked attackers is a really dishonest way to portray that interaction. (As I've been saying, the initial shooting is something else entirely).  [We all have out takes.  The kid was NOT shooting and didn't run into them. They went after him.  And the kid has/had a right to self-defense, which is the crux of the issue.]

 

Appreciate your honest takes, even though we may disagree ("to a degree").

A refreshing departure from the tsunami of intentional misquoting and lies from Andy.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, concha said:

And your little word games like "killed two people to help others" aren't cute.

👇

10 hours ago, concha said:

I certainly wouldn't have let my sons be there.

That said, since when don't Americans cross state and county lines to help one another?

This is interesting: "... a chunk of posters here seemingly okay with snuffing 2 people..."

Really?  It seems to me that the leftist point of view on this is that the rioters and looters (many with criminal records, like those who were shot) had every right to be there and every justification. But people being there to protect innocent citizens' businesses is a provocation.  How utterly absurd.

I have seen a grand total of zero people justify the shootings because the people were criminals and looting and destroying. Zero.

They got themselves shot because they attacked someone and that person exercised his God-given right to defend his life.

Accurately portraying what concha said = word games!

🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To The Class:

I won't be spending the whole day responding to Andy for a simple reason: I have no desire to have to repeatedly expose and correct his dishonesty for hours and hours (as I did yesterday).

An example of Andy's dishonesty:

Andy quote: "So it's a self-defense argument until it becomes as "killed two people to help others" argument."

Andy uses word salad dishonesty to tie the point of the shooter being there to help business owners protect their property (and paint their businesses as he had been seen doing earlier) to him being forced to use deadly force to protect himself later on.

Of course, I at no point said people dying was the purpose of the kid being there.

Andy uses an incredibly dishonest tactic of tying together independent ideas to create a new one (which is, in fact, only his own).  It's like cutting words out of a newspaper article to create something completely different.

By the logic Andy would have you believe, if someone goes to Target to go shopping but has to take a shit in the Target store's john while he's there, then the person actually went there with the clear intent to shit and that's it.

And he'll do shit like this ALL day. Endlessly.

Sorry, Andy.

Not wasting my day with your bullshit today...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, concha said:

To The Class:

I won't be spending the whole day responding to Andy for a simple reason: I have no desire to have to repeatedly expose and correct his dishonesty for hours and hours (as I did yesterday).

An example of Andy's dishonesty:

Andy quote: "So it's a self-defense argument until it becomes as "killed two people to help others" argument."

Andy uses word salad dishonesty to tie the point of the shooter being there to help business owners protect their property (and paint their businesses as he had been seen doing earlier) to him being forced to use deadly force to protect himself later on.

Of course, I at no point said people dying was the purpose of the kid being there.

Andy uses an incredibly dishonest tactic of tying together independent ideas to create a new one (which is, in fact, only his own).  It's like cutting words out of a newspaper article to create something completely different.

By the logic Andy would have you believe, if someone goes to Target to go shopping but has to take a shit in the Target store's john while he's there, then the person actually went there with the clear intent to shit and that's it.

And he'll do shit like this ALL day. Endlessly.

Sorry, Andy.

Not wasting my day with your bullshit today...

 

 

 

 

 

You done?

  • Haha 1
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...