Unarmed black man? Shoot 7 times in the back.Armed white kid? Give him some water.

[gaussian]

Who said they were innocent? Police with deal with them, insurance will deal with the damage, public execution by 17 year old kids is not the solution.

Reading this sentence generally I'm understanding the following:

1. Rioters are bad
2. Police handle the riots
3. Insurance handles the burning buildings and looting

I don't see anywhere citizens defending their property being considered. I am not saying this particular person was "defending their property". The implication of your statement is if a rioter shows up at my business or home I should get to my knees and wait for police to arrive. Insurance will cover the damages, and with any hope they'll catch the bad guy and my medical bills will be paid too. I feel like if I own a business and rioters are there I'm going to round up a posse and camp my roof with rifles. Why wouldn't I if I've spent much of life savings creating this thing? You're oversimplifying the problem by assume people have the insurance to cover an act of God and moreover assuming that, for lack of a better word, this just a "tantrum" rather than an ideological drive by the rioters.

More considerations:

0. Home invasion statistics show even when it goes in the favor of the occupant (in other words they didn't die) they are maimed or worse.
1. Insurers will refuse to cover acts of God (riots). Businesses will declare bankruptcy and either never show up again or refuse to build in towns with riots. This increases class disparity and income disparity - the antithesis of what the left wants at it's core. Cheap plots of land where you can build a trinket store is exactly what the left should be protecting if the goal is to provide more avenues for wealth growth by lower income individuals.
2. (1) will travel up the chain to megamarts and they won't build either.
3. Under no circumstance will someone not defend their property.

It's truly unfortunate more states do not have a castle doctrine. Your home is truly your castle and under no circumstance should to surrender to any criminal. Be it rioter, looter, robber, or otherwise.


I do question the shooter's actual motive especially w.r.t crossing state lines. I do not object to business owners, homeowners, and others defending their town from violence.

 

[Daxtrader]

Reading this sentence generally I'm understanding the following:

1. Rioters are bad
2. Police handle the riots
3. Insurance handles the burning buildings and looting

I don't see anywhere citizens defending their property being considered. I am not saying this particular person was "defending their property". The implication of your statement is if a rioter shows up at my business or home I should get to my knees and wait for police to arrive. Insurance will cover the damages, and with any hope they'll catch the bad guy and my medical bills will be paid too. I feel like if I own a business and rioters are there I'm going to round up a posse and camp my roof with rifles. Why wouldn't I if I've spent much of life savings creating this thing? You're oversimplifying the problem by assume people have the insurance to cover an act of God and moreover assuming that, for lack of a better word, this just a "tantrum" rather than an ideological drive by the rioters.

More considerations:

0. Home invasion statistics show even when it goes in the favor of the occupant (in other words they didn't die) they are maimed or worse.
1. Insurers will refuse to cover acts of God (riots). Businesses will declare bankruptcy and either never show up again or refuse to build in towns with riots. This increases class disparity and income disparity - the antithesis of what the left wants at it's core.
2. (1) will travel up the chain to megamarts and they won't build either.
3. Under no circumstance will someone not defend their property.

It's truly unfortunate more states do not have a castle doctrine. Your home is truly your castle and under no circumstance should to surrender to any criminal. Be it rioter, looter, robber, or otherwise.

You are too reasonable for the two resident morons who literally post here all day thread after thread for the past 6 months. Either they are paid shills or just basement dwelling losers like Biden.

 

[Cuddles]

Then explain the inconsistency(s) in the logic if you can or if you dare. It should be easy for you, right?

inconsistencies of some story you've fantasized in your head? How 'tf is someone supposed to do that?

 

[Good1]

Because I don't care enough to go looking, you do your own homework. The story is this incel was confronted for pointing his weapon at protesters and/or rioters

inconsistencies of some story you've fantasized in your head? How 'tf is someone supposed to do that?

I did my homework (watched daxtraders video posts). Looks like the first shooting was justified as well. Why would anybody chase and throw anything at someone open carrying a semi auto rifle? And if It was that first dude looking for a fight it was more than a "fuck you'. Chasing at speed with that kind of anger is a deadly threat amongst a mob that can capitalize on any kind of assault that can incapacitate you even for a moment, especially if you have an arm they can then turn on you. The kid was retreating when he found the need to shoot.

So nothing about the first event justified the chase down the street and the charge once he tripped up.

Then, in rapid succession a stomper dude was followed by a grabber dude (skateboard dude) followed by tournequet dude...WHO TURNED OUT TO BE GLOCK DUDE. So if the first two "unarmed" man-down attackers had succeeded in disarming him, Glock dude may have finished him. If not the Clock, the mob.

Turns out Clock dude pulled his weapon from his waist. Pulled his weapon the moment the kid took his aim off and pointed at the ground. Dude right behind Clock puller wisely decided to back off. Clock man pulled when the fight was over, lost his Glock, and nearly lost his shooting arm from the elbow down. Smart guy keeps backing away and lives happily ever after.

So from what I can tell the mob that was trying to intimidate the whole town, and by extension of media the whole country, tried to intimidate an open carry kid who would not be intimidated. And now they are trying to intimidate him through law-fare, and in attacking him, are trying to intimidate anyone else who might be thinking about standing their ground when the mob arrives.

 

[Cuddles]

Reading this sentence generally I'm understanding the following:

1. Rioters are bad
2. Police handle the riots
3. Insurance handles the burning buildings and looting

I don't see anywhere citizens defending their property being considered. I am not saying this particular person was "defending their property". The implication of your statement is if a rioter shows up at my business or home I should get to my knees and wait for police to arrive. Insurance will cover the damages, and with any hope they'll catch the bad guy and my medical bills will be paid too. I feel like if I own a business and rioters are there I'm going to round up a posse and camp my roof with rifles. Why wouldn't I if I've spent much of life savings creating this thing? You're oversimplifying the problem by assume people have the insurance to cover an act of God and moreover assuming that, for lack of a better word, this just a "tantrum" rather than an ideological drive by the rioters.

More considerations:

0. Home invasion statistics show even when it goes in the favor of the occupant (in other words they didn't die) they are maimed or worse.
1. Insurers will refuse to cover acts of God (riots). Businesses will declare bankruptcy and either never show up again or refuse to build in towns with riots. This increases class disparity and income disparity - the antithesis of what the left wants at it's core. Cheap plots of land where you can build a trinket store is exactly what the left should be protecting if the goal is to provide more avenues for wealth growth by lower income individuals.
2. (1) will travel up the chain to megamarts and they won't build either.
3. Under no circumstance will someone not defend their property.

It's truly unfortunate more states do not have a castle doctrine. Your home is truly your castle and under no circumstance should to surrender to any criminal. Be it rioter, looter, robber, or otherwise.


I do question the shooter's actual motive especially w.r.t crossing state lines. I do not object to business owners, homeowners, and others defending their town from violence.

The problem w/stand your ground is you end up w/Trayvon Martin situations. Picture this scenario:
I'm a serial killer that packs heat.
I go out every night looking for trouble, but I'm sneaky because I know assault laws in my state so I'll just follow/stalk someone, call someone a f**t, a n**er or I'll just verbally harass another man's girl or spouse knowing that it won't count as physical instigation. Do I get to shoot the person who's about to sock me due to imminent threat of bodily harm? How many times do I get away w/murder hiding behind this defense?

The problem w/castle doctrine is it need not apply outside your home as is the case here, even less so protecting strangers' properties.

 

[Cuddles]

I did my homework (watched daxtraders video posts). Looks like the first shooting was justified as well. Why would anybody chase and throw anything at someone open carrying a semi auto rifle? And if It was that first dude looking for a fight it was more than a "fuck you'. Chasing at speed with that kind of anger is a deadly threat amongst a mob that can capitalize on any kind of assault that can incapacitate you even for a moment, especially if you have an arm they can then turn on you. The kid was retreating when he found the need to shoot.

oh....you got video of the events immediately before the chase? You ask "why would anybody chase and throw anything at someone carrying a semi auto rifle" Good, signs of intelligence after all.

 

[Good1]

inconsistencies of some story you've fantasized in your head? How 'tf is someone supposed to do that?

oh....you got video of the events immediately before the chase? You ask "why would anybody chase and throw anything at someone carrying a semi auto rifle" Good, signs of intelligence after all.

Yah daxtrader posted some footage. Kid was chased high speed by dude throwing while chasing. Depending how angry chase dude was determines how justified the kid was in stop running away, stand ground and open fire.


Now, according to this next source, there may have been an even earlier event before chase dude was shot, and before man-down three stooges were shot:

Apparently there was a looter that got shot too. We'll see the circumstances on that one too eventually. I'm going to guess the looter looted and then did something even more srupid when he saw an open carry white boy.

 

[exGOPer]

Reading this sentence generally I'm understanding the following:
I am not saying this particular person was "defending their property".
.

We are talking about this one particular person, your bias of supporting Trump and everything right wing is interfering with that, you were watching violent porn all day and now can't stop making stupid unrelated arguments not related to this incident. You will always side with the murderer because the incel kid is a right wing hero now. He did what all of you wanted to be done but were too cowardly to do.

 

[LacesOut]

Notice how the local Trumptard has nothing to say about the murders, pro life cuck are all about 'property' like they personally own it, but when people get murdered, it's completely ok to ignore.

Murders were great.
A sexual molester and a felon.
Give the kid a medal.

 

[LacesOut]

Remember when David Dorn was killed by BLM Biden voters in June?
Crickets from our resident libtard idiots.
that was a good kill in their mind.