Red Mosquito

VinylGuy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:the fact that a 17 years old boy had a gun and used it on the street is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

The fact that a violent mob was rampaging over a city burning down buildings and threatening people, even people with guns, with utter impunity, while police did nothing is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

How is this the thing your worried about?

Oh dont get me wrong. Im super worried about whats happening. Its not one thing of the other for me. But that kid is 17 years old and already killed two people. With a fucking shotgun. Its so fucking sad.

It's sad, but he isn't the one to blame for other people attacking him, regardless of whether he is armed or not. He wasn't even the only one armed with a gun. One of the attackers had a firearm (illegally, if I understand correctly, not that legality equals morality).

BurtReynolds wrote:

dad wrote:that kid needs to just go the fuck to school. plenty of time to be a vigilante later.

"She deserved it did you see what she was wearing?"

Not really the same thing, but okay.

why does a 17yo kid need to take up arms, cross state lines, just to prove his worth as a good ol American counterprotester?

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That does look like him, yes. Thank you for offering anything to substantiate macphisto's post. I appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post... again, whatever narrative you need.

I wasn't there but based on what I've seen from video evidence and from reading accounts of what happened, I'm not as sure as you are about the version of events you've presented. Maybe, once more comes out, we can have a better picture.

Either way, throwing plastic at an illegally armed instigator sure doesn't warrant a death sentence.

Yeah sure man he was just throwing a plastic bag at a guy. Yeah that's all the happened. Whatever narrative you need.

You're right, there was more to it. Specifically concerning the "guy" you're defending.

Ok. Your turn. Show me some sources.

You need me to cite a source to tell you that portraying a 17 year old vigilante illegally carrying an automatic weapon as just "a guy" is misleading?

Nope.

VinylGuy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:the fact that a 17 years old boy had a gun and used it on the street is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

The fact that a violent mob was rampaging over a city burning down buildings and threatening people, even people with guns, with utter impunity, while police did nothing is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

How is this the thing your worried about?

Oh dont get me wrong. Im super worried about whats happening. Its not one thing of the other for me. But that kid is 17 years old and already killed two people. With a fucking shotgun. Its so fucking sad.

Nope.

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:the fact that a 17 years old boy had a gun and used it on the street is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

The fact that a violent mob was rampaging over a city burning down buildings and threatening people, even people with guns, with utter impunity, while police did nothing is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

How is this the thing your worried about?

Oh dont get me wrong. Im super worried about whats happening. Its not one thing of the other for me. But that kid is 17 years old and already killed two people. With a fucking shotgun. Its so fucking sad.

It's sad, but he isn't the one to blame for other people attacking him, regardless of whether he is armed or not. He wasn't even the only one armed with a gun. One of the attackers had a firearm (illegally, if I understand correctly, not that legality equals morality).

For me the saddest part is knowing there is a culture that provides you with that idea. What a failure.

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That does look like him, yes. Thank you for offering anything to substantiate macphisto's post. I appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post... again, whatever narrative you need.

I wasn't there but based on what I've seen from video evidence and from reading accounts of what happened, I'm not as sure as you are about the version of events you've presented. Maybe, once more comes out, we can have a better picture.

Either way, throwing plastic at an illegally armed instigator sure doesn't warrant a death sentence.

Yeah sure man he was just throwing a plastic bag at a guy. Yeah that's all the happened. Whatever narrative you need.

You're right, there was more to it. Specifically concerning the "guy" you're defending.

Ok. Your turn. Show me some sources.

You need me to cite a source to tell you that portraying a 17 year old vigilante illegally carrying an automatic weapon as just "a guy" is misleading?

I need you to post sources showing that the boy was in the wrong here and that a man simply "threw a bag at him" and nothing else. I need you to show me why it is wrong to fight back when being attacked/chased by a mob. Fuck I'll take eye witness testimony if nothing else, which, by the way, I also have.

"The boy" was in the wrong because he shouldn't have been carrying a gun. He shouldn't have been there in first place. He drove across state lines with a gun. Why? Do you really think he wasn't hoping to shoot someone? I don't know his mind but it's hard to believe he just really loves Wisconsin gas stations. But I can't prove that. It's just logical conjecture. So, you got me there!

He was in the wrong because killing people is wrong. And if the people he killed didn't have guns, then he could have and should have defended himself (which I fully admit he has the right to do) with something other than a gun. I can't imagine there are any links I could provide you that would change your mind on that.

I already said I wasn't there. The fact that you used the phrase "threw a bag at him" shows me that you've probably read all the same accounts that I've read. I'm happy to link them for you (it's outlets like CNN, the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, AP, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, NPR, CBS, ABC News, etc) . But that wasn't a term I used in my post, so you got it from somewhere. If you've already read them, I doubt you'll read them again and change your mind.

You assert he was being chased by a mob. I haven't seen that. Unless we're defining mob as a few people. Then, yes he was being chased by "a mob." But that seems like a misleading characterization. More importantly, and I'm not seeing people talk about this, maybe you know and can fill me in, but why he was being chased? Why was he being "attacked."

I don't think it's just because. He's a civilian (encouraged by police to take action into his own hands) who approached people with a fucking gun. You've said yourself that if someone comes at you, they're gonna get it. Do you have such a lack of empathy for the these protesters that you so desperately despise to imagine that you might have at least that one thing in common with them? You tell me what you'd do if some kid came up to you strapped with an automatic weapon.

I don't have any eye witness testimony other than what's been reported standard news outlets. I wasn't there. I guess you were. So you tell me what actually happened, since you know.

Burt is a tough guy. DONT FUCK WITH HIM!

macphisto wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That does look like him, yes. Thank you for offering anything to substantiate macphisto's post. I appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post... again, whatever narrative you need.

I wasn't there but based on what I've seen from video evidence and from reading accounts of what happened, I'm not as sure as you are about the version of events you've presented. Maybe, once more comes out, we can have a better picture.

Either way, throwing plastic at an illegally armed instigator sure doesn't warrant a death sentence.

Yeah sure man he was just throwing a plastic bag at a guy. Yeah that's all the happened. Whatever narrative you need.

You're right, there was more to it. Specifically concerning the "guy" you're defending.

Ok. Your turn. Show me some sources.

You need me to cite a source to tell you that portraying a 17 year old vigilante illegally carrying an automatic weapon as just "a guy" is misleading?

Nope.

VinylGuy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:the fact that a 17 years old boy had a gun and used it on the street is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

The fact that a violent mob was rampaging over a city burning down buildings and threatening people, even people with guns, with utter impunity, while police did nothing is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

How is this the thing your worried about?

Oh dont get me wrong. Im super worried about whats happening. Its not one thing of the other for me. But that kid is 17 years old and already killed two people. With a fucking shotgun. Its so fucking sad.

Nope.

Sorry -- assault weapon

that a very cool post joe. Im glad we have the same ideas or share a common view on how fucked up is this.

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That does look like him, yes. Thank you for offering anything to substantiate macphisto's post. I appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post... again, whatever narrative you need.

I wasn't there but based on what I've seen from video evidence and from reading accounts of what happened, I'm not as sure as you are about the version of events you've presented. Maybe, once more comes out, we can have a better picture.

Either way, throwing plastic at an illegally armed instigator sure doesn't warrant a death sentence.

Yeah sure man he was just throwing a plastic bag at a guy. Yeah that's all the happened. Whatever narrative you need.

You're right, there was more to it. Specifically concerning the "guy" you're defending.

Ok. Your turn. Show me some sources.

You need me to cite a source to tell you that portraying a 17 year old vigilante illegally carrying an automatic weapon as just "a guy" is misleading?

I need you to post sources showing that the boy was in the wrong here and that a man simply "threw a bag at him" and nothing else. I need you to show me why it is wrong to fight back when being attacked/chased by a mob. Fuck I'll take eye witness testimony if nothing else, which, by the way, I also have.

"The boy" was in the wrong because he shouldn't have been carrying a gun. He shouldn't have been there in first place. He drove across state lines with a gun. Why? Do you really think he wasn't hoping to shoot someone? I don't know his mind but it's hard to believe he just really loves Wisconsin gas stations. But I can't prove that. It's just logical conjecture. So, you got me there!

He was in the wrong because killing people is wrong. And if the people he killed didn't have guns, then he could have and should have defended himself (which I fully admit he has the right to do) with something other than a gun. I can't imagine there are any links I could provide you that would change your mind on that.

I already said I wasn't there. The fact that you used the phrase "threw a bag at him" shows me that you've probably read all the same accounts that I've read. I'm happy to link them for you (it's outlets like CNN, the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, AP, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, NPR, CBS, ABC News, etc) . But that wasn't a term I used in my post, so you got it from somewhere. If you've already read them, I doubt you'll read them again and change your mind.

You assert he was being chased by a mob. I haven't seen that. Unless we're defining mob as a few people. Then, yes he was being chased by "a mob." But that seems like a misleading characterization. More importantly, and I'm not seeing people talk about this, maybe you know and can fill me in, but why he was being chased? Why was he being "attacked."

I don't think it's just because. He's a civilian (encouraged by police to take action into his own hands) who approached people with a fucking gun. You've said yourself that if someone comes at you, they're gonna get it. Do you have such a lack of empathy for the these protesters that you so desperately despise to imagine that you might have at least that one thing in common with them? You tell me what you'd do if some kid came up to you strapped with an automatic weapon.

I don't have any eye witness testimony other than what's been reported standard news outlets. I wasn't there. I guess you were. So you tell me what actually happened, since you know.

You must've missed the account of the journalist (and his colleague) that was interviewing him just prior to the first shooting. He didnt approach anyone, the bald dude came up to him and tried to grab his gun. This was witnessed by the journalist (DC Caller maybe?)

He did exactly what was required from him by law- he attempted to remove himself from the altercation. The bald guy chased after him and pressed the issue. He did nothing to provoke, used no fighting words.

The journalist attempted to render aid and carried the bald guy to a vehicle to take him to the hospital ~100 yards away. He was punched several times for his efforts. So yeah, mob.

VinylGuy wrote:that a very cool post joe. Im glad we have the same ideas or share a common view on how fucked up is this.

Common ground is so lacking. It's nice to find it. I appreciate you speaking up in this thread even though it can be so unnecessarily hostile.

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That does look like him, yes. Thank you for offering anything to substantiate macphisto's post. I appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post... again, whatever narrative you need.

I wasn't there but based on what I've seen from video evidence and from reading accounts of what happened, I'm not as sure as you are about the version of events you've presented. Maybe, once more comes out, we can have a better picture.

Either way, throwing plastic at an illegally armed instigator sure doesn't warrant a death sentence.

Yeah sure man he was just throwing a plastic bag at a guy. Yeah that's all the happened. Whatever narrative you need.

You're right, there was more to it. Specifically concerning the "guy" you're defending.

Ok. Your turn. Show me some sources.

You need me to cite a source to tell you that portraying a 17 year old vigilante illegally carrying an automatic weapon as just "a guy" is misleading?

I need you to post sources showing that the boy was in the wrong here and that a man simply "threw a bag at him" and nothing else. I need you to show me why it is wrong to fight back when being attacked/chased by a mob. Fuck I'll take eye witness testimony if nothing else, which, by the way, I also have.

"The boy" was in the wrong because he shouldn't have been carrying a gun. He shouldn't have been there in first place. He drove across state lines with a gun. Why? Do you really think he wasn't hoping to shoot someone? I don't know his mind but it's hard to believe he just really loves Wisconsin gas stations. But I can't prove that. It's just logical conjecture. So, you got me there!

He was in the wrong because killing people is wrong. And if the people he killed didn't have guns, then he could have and should have defended himself (which I fully admit he has the right to do) with something other than a gun. I can't imagine there are any links I could provide you that would change your mind on that.

I already said I wasn't there. The fact that you used the phrase "threw a bag at him" shows me that you've probably read all the same accounts that I've read. I'm happy to link them for you (it's outlets like CNN, the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, AP, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, NPR, CBS, ABC News, etc) . But that wasn't a term I used in my post, so you got it from somewhere. If you've already read them, I doubt you'll read them again and change your mind.

You assert he was being chased by a mob. I haven't seen that. Unless we're defining mob as a few people. Then, yes he was being chased by "a mob." But that seems like a misleading characterization. More importantly, and I'm not seeing people talk about this, maybe you know and can fill me in, but why he was being chased? Why was he being "attacked."

I don't think it's just because. He's a civilian (encouraged by police to take action into his own hands) who approached people with a fucking gun. You've said yourself that if someone comes at you, they're gonna get it. Do you have such a lack of empathy for the these protesters that you so desperately despise to imagine that you might have at least that one thing in common with them? You tell me what you'd do if some kid came up to you strapped with an automatic weapon.

I don't have any eye witness testimony other than what's been reported standard news outlets. I wasn't there. I guess you were. So you tell me what actually happened, since you know.

You must've missed the account of the journalist (and his colleague) that was interviewing him just prior to the first shooting. He didnt approach anyone, the bald dude came up to him and tried to grab his gun. This was witnessed by the journalist (DC Caller maybe?)

He did exactly what was required from him by law- he attempted to remove himself from the altercation. The bald guy chased after him and pressed the issue. He did nothing to provoke, used no fighting words.

The journalist attempted to render aid and carried the bald guy to a vehicle to take him to the hospital ~100 yards away. He was punched several times for his efforts. So yeah, mob.

I did miss that account. Can you link me to it? I'd love to check it out.

I'll also go ahead and amend my statement that he "drove across state lines with a gun." That's allegedly. Apparently his lawyer denies that he did that, saying it wasn't his gun and that he got it after arriving in Wi. However, it's notable that there have been reports that he crossed state-lines several times. I have no idea if that's substantiated.

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:the fact that a 17 years old boy had a gun and used it on the street is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

The fact that a violent mob was rampaging over a city burning down buildings and threatening people, even people with guns, with utter impunity, while police did nothing is not alarming to you guys? Thats normal and cool?

How is this the thing your worried about?

Oh dont get me wrong. Im super worried about whats happening. Its not one thing of the other for me. But that kid is 17 years old and already killed two people. With a fucking shotgun. Its so fucking sad.

It's sad, but he isn't the one to blame for other people attacking him, regardless of whether he is armed or not. He wasn't even the only one armed with a gun. One of the attackers had a firearm (illegally, if I understand correctly, not that legality equals morality).

Its not clear that the guy with the handgun is a prohibited person. He had a couple misdemeanor convictions but I don't believe its been established that he had a disqualifying felony. Weirdly enough some of his earlier charges were firearm related, but maybe he was able to plead down.

Let's break this down:

---"The boy" was in the wrong because he shouldn't have been carrying a gun."

yes, the boy. that's what he was. A boy. No need for quotes. Why is he in the wrong for carrying a gun? It's perfectly fine for a boy to carry a gun, especially in a situation where a violent mob is wondering around and the police can't or won't respond to calls. And he has every right to be there. You are making the "she deserved it look what she was wearing argument.

--- He drove across state lines with a gun

So? Was it immoral to do this? Would you have been fine with it if he drove from hours away from in-state rather than a few minutes away, but just happens to be across a boundary line? You want to say its illegal, ok, but you can't make the argument that he was morally wrong to do this unless you think state lines equate to moral tenets.

--- Do you really think he wasn't hoping to shoot someone?

I don't know for sure, but there is plenty of video available for you to watch, and none of it shows a murder crazy madman just itching to murder people. How are you making this assumption?

--- He was in the wrong because killing people is wrong.

This is wrong. In fact, this is incredibly fucked. If a black man is about to be lynched, is he wrong for killing his attackers? Yes, durd, you have a right to defend yourself from attackers, and killing is in fact NOT wrong if its in self defense. It's a moral good to use deadly force against those that attack you. What the fuk is wrong with you?

--- And if the people he killed didn't have guns, then he could have and should have defended himself (which I fully admit he has the right to do) with something other than a gun.

Holy shit, man. So if ten guys attack you, but they're unarmed, you must only fight back with your fists? What is your moral system based on? Manliness? Like, what if its an elderly woman, or a child. Can they use guns? Why does it have to be "an even fight"?

---
Let me continue, but first is anyone else reading this?! Does anyone agree with Durden here?!

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:that a very cool post joe. Im glad we have the same ideas or share a common view on how fucked up is this.

Common ground is so lacking. It's nice to find it. I appreciate you speaking up in this thread even though it can be so unnecessarily hostile.

yeah totally.

durdencommatyler wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That does look like him, yes. Thank you for offering anything to substantiate macphisto's post. I appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post... again, whatever narrative you need.

I wasn't there but based on what I've seen from video evidence and from reading accounts of what happened, I'm not as sure as you are about the version of events you've presented. Maybe, once more comes out, we can have a better picture.

Either way, throwing plastic at an illegally armed instigator sure doesn't warrant a death sentence.

Yeah sure man he was just throwing a plastic bag at a guy. Yeah that's all the happened. Whatever narrative you need.

You're right, there was more to it. Specifically concerning the "guy" you're defending.

Ok. Your turn. Show me some sources.

You need me to cite a source to tell you that portraying a 17 year old vigilante illegally carrying an automatic weapon as just "a guy" is misleading?

I need you to post sources showing that the boy was in the wrong here and that a man simply "threw a bag at him" and nothing else. I need you to show me why it is wrong to fight back when being attacked/chased by a mob. Fuck I'll take eye witness testimony if nothing else, which, by the way, I also have.

"The boy" was in the wrong because he shouldn't have been carrying a gun. He shouldn't have been there in first place. He drove across state lines with a gun. Why? Do you really think he wasn't hoping to shoot someone? I don't know his mind but it's hard to believe he just really loves Wisconsin gas stations. But I can't prove that. It's just logical conjecture. So, you got me there!

He was in the wrong because killing people is wrong. And if the people he killed didn't have guns, then he could have and should have defended himself (which I fully admit he has the right to do) with something other than a gun. I can't imagine there are any links I could provide you that would change your mind on that.

I already said I wasn't there. The fact that you used the phrase "threw a bag at him" shows me that you've probably read all the same accounts that I've read. I'm happy to link them for you (it's outlets like CNN, the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, AP, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, NPR, CBS, ABC News, etc) . But that wasn't a term I used in my post, so you got it from somewhere. If you've already read them, I doubt you'll read them again and change your mind.

You assert he was being chased by a mob. I haven't seen that. Unless we're defining mob as a few people. Then, yes he was being chased by "a mob." But that seems like a misleading characterization. More importantly, and I'm not seeing people talk about this, maybe you know and can fill me in, but why he was being chased? Why was he being "attacked."

I don't think it's just because. He's a civilian (encouraged by police to take action into his own hands) who approached people with a fucking gun. You've said yourself that if someone comes at you, they're gonna get it. Do you have such a lack of empathy for the these protesters that you so desperately despise to imagine that you might have at least that one thing in common with them? You tell me what you'd do if some kid came up to you strapped with an automatic weapon.

I don't have any eye witness testimony other than what's been reported standard news outlets. I wasn't there. I guess you were. So you tell me what actually happened, since you know.

You must've missed the account of the journalist (and his colleague) that was interviewing him just prior to the first shooting. He didnt approach anyone, the bald dude came up to him and tried to grab his gun. This was witnessed by the journalist (DC Caller maybe?)

He did exactly what was required from him by law- he attempted to remove himself from the altercation. The bald guy chased after him and pressed the issue. He did nothing to provoke, used no fighting words.

The journalist attempted to render aid and carried the bald guy to a vehicle to take him to the hospital ~100 yards away. He was punched several times for his efforts. So yeah, mob.

I did miss that account. Can you link me to it? I'd love to check it out.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/27/we-w ... -happened/

Hope you dont get hit by a paywall. Not the best publication, but what can you do.

VinylGuy wrote:that a very cool post joe. Im glad we have the same ideas or share a common view on how fucked up is this.

I am utterly amazed that there are people who think like this. You honestly think that killing someone is wrong in every possible case? That can't be right.

Strat wrote:Burt is a tough guy. DONT FUCK WITH HIM!

I'm not the guy literally arguing that the only possible way one can morally defend oneself against unarmed attackers is with my bare fists.

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That does look like him, yes. Thank you for offering anything to substantiate macphisto's post. I appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post... again, whatever narrative you need.

I wasn't there but based on what I've seen from video evidence and from reading accounts of what happened, I'm not as sure as you are about the version of events you've presented. Maybe, once more comes out, we can have a better picture.

Either way, throwing plastic at an illegally armed instigator sure doesn't warrant a death sentence.

Yeah sure man he was just throwing a plastic bag at a guy. Yeah that's all the happened. Whatever narrative you need.

You're right, there was more to it. Specifically concerning the "guy" you're defending.

Ok. Your turn. Show me some sources.

You need me to cite a source to tell you that portraying a 17 year old vigilante illegally carrying an automatic weapon as just "a guy" is misleading?

I need you to post sources showing that the boy was in the wrong here and that a man simply "threw a bag at him" and nothing else. I need you to show me why it is wrong to fight back when being attacked/chased by a mob. Fuck I'll take eye witness testimony if nothing else, which, by the way, I also have.

"The boy" was in the wrong because he shouldn't have been carrying a gun. He shouldn't have been there in first place. He drove across state lines with a gun. Why? Do you really think he wasn't hoping to shoot someone? I don't know his mind but it's hard to believe he just really loves Wisconsin gas stations. But I can't prove that. It's just logical conjecture. So, you got me there!

He was in the wrong because killing people is wrong. And if the people he killed didn't have guns, then he could have and should have defended himself (which I fully admit he has the right to do) with something other than a gun. I can't imagine there are any links I could provide you that would change your mind on that.

I already said I wasn't there. The fact that you used the phrase "threw a bag at him" shows me that you've probably read all the same accounts that I've read. I'm happy to link them for you (it's outlets like CNN, the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, AP, Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, NPR, CBS, ABC News, etc) . But that wasn't a term I used in my post, so you got it from somewhere. If you've already read them, I doubt you'll read them again and change your mind.

You assert he was being chased by a mob. I haven't seen that. Unless we're defining mob as a few people. Then, yes he was being chased by "a mob." But that seems like a misleading characterization. More importantly, and I'm not seeing people talk about this, maybe you know and can fill me in, but why he was being chased? Why was he being "attacked."

I don't think it's just because. He's a civilian (encouraged by police to take action into his own hands) who approached people with a fucking gun. You've said yourself that if someone comes at you, they're gonna get it. Do you have such a lack of empathy for the these protesters that you so desperately despise to imagine that you might have at least that one thing in common with them? You tell me what you'd do if some kid came up to you strapped with an automatic weapon.

I don't have any eye witness testimony other than what's been reported standard news outlets. I wasn't there. I guess you were. So you tell me what actually happened, since you know.

You must've missed the account of the journalist (and his colleague) that was interviewing him just prior to the first shooting. He didnt approach anyone, the bald dude came up to him and tried to grab his gun. This was witnessed by the journalist (DC Caller maybe?)

He did exactly what was required from him by law- he attempted to remove himself from the altercation. The bald guy chased after him and pressed the issue. He did nothing to provoke, used no fighting words.

The journalist attempted to render aid and carried the bald guy to a vehicle to take him to the hospital ~100 yards away. He was punched several times for his efforts. So yeah, mob.

I did miss that account. Can you link me to it? I'd love to check it out.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/27/we-w ... -happened/

Hope you dont get hit by a paywall. Not the best publication, but what can you do.

I appreciate it. But given that it's the Daily Caller, I think you can understand my taking it with a grain of salt. But I do appreciate the link.

Burt, i get your views. You have been vocal about it. Its your plea, and if you want to live in this world, ey its on you.

For me, its super sad. A boy with a gun on a riot. Killing people. If the other guy had a gun, also super sad. And i dont believe in killing people as a form of vengeance or justice.

But anway, i know i wont change your views so its fine. Im just posting here.