5 Black Lives Matters protesters shot by white supremacists

[Anagonia]

Hmm. Interesting.

[AiliailiA]

Apparently it isn't necessary to kill anyone to "neutralize the threat".

Sweeping statement of general fact based off of solitary occurrences aren't very good arguments.
To be blunt, if this was a case of self-defense the shooters benefited enormously from their escorts/herders likely not wishing to harm them (assuming the BLM version of events is truth). Something which is not true in other cases wherein self-defense may take place.

I'm glad you say "if". The possibility that it was legitimate self-defense to fire is something I am accepting for now ... as benefit of the doubt.

My inclination is to distrust anyone who opens fire, but I must admit the possibility that in this case it was lawful.

If I didn't do that, I'd be no better than the equally ignorant people here who claim it was lawful. They don't know and I don't know, ultimately no-one knows until it goes to trial which I'm pretty sure it will.

Nothing magical about it. Warning shots demonstrate very plainly that you have a loaded gun, and people often run away even if they're not the target of a shooting.

Warning shots also pose a serious danger to uninvolved bystanders, and are demonstrative of a mental capacity to recognize one is not actually in enough danger to require the usage of deadly force.
Usage of a firearm is deadly force. It should be used only in those situations when one believes their own life or that of another depends upon that deadly force being focused towards another individual or individuals. It should decidedly NOT be used as a scare-tactic. Both because such isn't 'self-defense' any longer but threatened violence, and because of the aforementioned danger it poses to others.

Deadly force is legitimate only if it's directed at the deadly threat itself? Fair enough, though I'm not conceding that happened in this case.

I see I was wrong about 'warning shots'. There is always some risk to others who are not the "deadly threat" ... so I was wrong.

I find it bizarre though that deadly force in self-defense is legitimate but that threatening to use deadly force for the same end is not.

If the men had drawn weapons and fired they'd be in the right, but if they'd drawn weapons, aimed them and threatened to fire ... they'd be in the wrong. Are you claiming that?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Deadly force is legitimate only if it's directed at the deadly threat itself? Fair enough, though I'm not conceding that happened in this case.

Which is fair. As you say, information is decidedly limited and an investigation and, investigations-findings dependent, trial are the only way anything concrete will come out that's trustworthy.

I see I was wrong about 'warning shots'. There is always some risk to others who are not the "deadly threat" ... so I was wrong.

I find it bizarre though that deadly force in self-defense is legitimate but that threatening to use deadly force for the same end is not.

If the men had drawn weapons and fired they'd be in the right, but if they'd drawn weapons, aimed them and threatened to fire ... they'd be in the wrong. Are you claiming that?

To some extent. I'd rather say that it immediately colors them and their actions in much more suspicious light, both in terms of my own inner moral compass as to such matters as well as what tends to be the legal system's suspicions/questions that would arise in such situations. It's possible for them to be in the right in both instances (or, similarly, in the wrong. We don't know for sure as of yet how appropriate or reasonable their possible self-defense was beyond some limited eyewitness statements as far as I've seen), and it largely depends upon the specifics of each case, but the latter situation raises more suspicions on my part than the former. Civilian self-defense situations tend to be spontaneous and sudden, at close ranges where an attacker has the advantage of surprise or the first move.

Someone making the claim that they were quick enough to recognize the threat posed by their attacker, draw their own firearm, aim it, and issue a warning to their 'attacker' coherent enough to be understood immediately makes me somewhat more suspicious than I otherwise would be simply because I know/suspect how very difficult doing one or two of those things alone under that much stress would be (I did some IDPA shooting some years ago, and while the 'stress' from being pressured to win/go-faster is undoubtedly minuscule compared to that one would experience under a self-defense situation, I can't imagine such a situation being somehow 'easier' stress-wise than something as mundane as a pistol-shooting competition).
I'd much sooner believe someone panicked and immediately used their firearm after drawing it on an 'attacker' (even, regrettably, in some cases where it may not have been necessary) than someone being so collected and mentally calm while being 'attacked' that they could display their firearm as a deterrent towards their 'attacker' (likewise for 'aiming for limbs' and warning shots, though those I object to more on the grounds of the danger they pose to others). I don't want to suggest those situations of deterrence never happen (they certainly could/might), or that any such occurrence is always in the wrong, but it being more difficult and, therefore, unlikely contributes to me being slightly more skeptical of stories where that kind of deterrance is claimed to have occurred and question whether it may not have actually been a situation where the firearm-wielder was the 'attacker' of a belligerent but otherwise acting-legally individual they got in an argument with.

And I believe a similar mentality exist in the justice system, alongside of more 'typical' things like prosecutors having a tendency to 'over-prosecute' sometimes to appear 'tough on crime' and the like.

[AiliailiA]

To be fair, they're outside a police station. If there's any legal grounds to "get rid of" someone at their protest, they just have to walk inside and ask for police to do so.

Yes, let's have an activist group protesting disproportionate force on their ethnicity by police walk into a police station to ask them to remove masked men. They'd be lucky if the police inside don't assume BLM was trying for their own Assault on Precinct 13 and open fire.

Wow, you really do think police are stupid don't you?

Police could certainly be better, but let's work towards that by holding them to higher legal standards, paying them more so recruiters can choose from better applicants, and paying for more training of police.

Not by broad insults to the whole profession. That won't make police better, it will make them worse.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Yes, let's have an activist group protesting disproportionate force on their ethnicity by police walk into a police station to ask them to remove masked men. They'd be lucky if the police inside don't assume BLM was trying for their own Assault on Precinct 13 and open fire.

Wow, you really do think police are stupid don't you?

Police could certainly be better, but let's work towards that by holding them to higher legal standards, paying them more so recruiters can choose from better applicants, and paying for more training of police.

Not by broad insults to the whole profession. That won't make police better, it will make them worse.

To be fair, this is NSG. Without a bit of pointlessly inflammatory rhetoric we might see posters start spontaneously combusting.

I find it amusing how much discussion I've heard has glossed over the fact that the protesters "escorted" the "shooters" away from both the police station and the demonstration. Last I checked, counterprotests were legal in the United States, as was freedom of assembly. No person expressing a political viewpoint has any right to limit the expression of a person with a different viewpoint, which seems to be suspiciously like what driving off people with ideas you don't agree with looks like.

Not to mention that, if these were reactionaries of some stripe, they were likely to have left simply after being asked to leave. That would imply to me that any "escorting" may have happened under duress.

But hey, we'll see how the cookie crumbles.

[Hyfling]

Now that's interesting... have to find out more there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2A_mrRnYfs

At the one minute mark these two witnesses claim that a protester punched the alleged white supremacists, who then reached for their guns. If their story can be corroborated it seems like a pretty cut and dry case of self defense.

Not looking good for BLM at all.

Were they even white supremacists? Only time will tell.

[Alvecia]

It occurs to me the three guys wearing masks probaby read too much Harry Potter

[The Enclave Government]

All I can really say is this is what happens when you counter racism with racism.

#AllLivesMatter

[AiliailiA]

All I can really say is this is what happens when you counter racism with racism.

#AllLivesMatter

All you can really say isn't much at all. If you made it any longer it couldn't be retweeted.

[The United States of North Amerigo]

Not really surprising is there a thread needed for this?

Of course white supremacists are going to harm blacklivesmatter protestors.

[Ostroeuropa]

Wow, you really do think police are stupid don't you?

Police could certainly be better, but let's work towards that by holding them to higher legal standards, paying them more so recruiters can choose from better applicants, and paying for more training of police.

Not by broad insults to the whole profession. That won't make police better, it will make them worse.

To be fair, this is NSG. Without a bit of pointlessly inflammatory rhetoric we might see posters start spontaneously combusting.

I find it amusing how much discussion I've heard has glossed over the fact that the protesters "escorted" the "shooters" away from both the police station and the demonstration. Last I checked, counterprotests were legal in the United States, as was freedom of assembly. No person expressing a political viewpoint has any right to limit the expression of a person with a different viewpoint, which seems to be suspiciously like what driving off people with ideas you don't agree with looks like.

Not to mention that, if these were reactionaries of some stripe, they were likely to have left simply after being asked to leave. That would imply to me that any "escorting" may have happened under duress.

But hey, we'll see how the cookie crumbles.

It's standard practice for the regressive left to suppress speech they don't agree with and use accusations of racism or sexism as weapons to threaten people with loss of social status and their livelihoods and such.
Since that isn't really working out for them anymore now that people have caught onto their bullshit, they're becoming more violent and authoritarian in their measures. You can see it on the campus protests.

Also, it's clear these peoples ideology and way of thinking causes them to believe anyone disagreeing with them is a racist or a sexist or whatever, regardless of how little sense it makes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... _of_being/

Here we see a bunch of White middle class SJWs accusing an asian gaming company selling a game made by asians to asians of being "white supremacist" because that company told them to take their "SJW Bullshit" elsewhere when they complained about the objectification in the game they're promoting.
(Incidentally, this is the second time i'm aware of that a company has stood up to these people, and it's sales have skyrocketted. Compare/contrast to the gaming media that sided with SJWs and crashed and burned. Money talks.)

I don't think these people have long left. The focus is on them now and it won't go away. They'll continue to be shown up for what they are and become less and less tolerated, more and more ridiculed, and more and more of a financial liability for those siding with them.

It's this kind of opportunistic crybullying and use of social isolation tactics, authoritarian measures, no platforming, straight up malicious lies and fabrications, and incoherent thought processes that have defined the SJWs. Not only that, they've caused people to be skeptical of all claims of sexism/racism etc to an extent they weren't before, and are likely radically undermining peoples trust in rape and sexual assault accusations too.
They might change their ways if they actually cared about the issues, but they don't. They're just after power and control of people.

It reaches this point.
A group of black protesters shot by masked people who are alleged to be white supremacist, and a profoundly liberally slanted forum is saying
"Well, there's probably more to it than we're being told. Perhaps it was justified."

Imagine that shit 10 years ago. 5 years ago.

They have utterly ruined peoples faith in anyone whining about oppression. We literally cannot solve issues of sexism and racism until this movement is destroyed and it's adherents made to grow up. Take a look at how these people ruined occupy wallstreet, and how they've now ruined BLM.

We need to start being more confrontational when they turn up and telling them to fuck off and take their SJW bullshit with them. We cannot let them keep taking over worthy causes.

[Hakaan]

and yet we say nothing when a black lives matter supporter shoots and kills a police officer...
I cannot take this hate movement seriously,
white supremacy is awful, but so is this "movement"
http://www.infowars.com/kentucky-cop-sh ... -ferguson/

[Paddy O Fernature]

and yet we say nothing when a black lives matter supporter shoots and kills a police officer...
I cannot take this hate movement seriously,
white supremacy is awful, but so is this "movement"
http://www.infowars.com/kentucky-cop-sh ... -ferguson/

Sad, but true.

[The Emerald Dawn]

and yet we say nothing when a black lives matter supporter shoots and kills a police officer...
I cannot take this hate movement seriously,
white supremacy are awful, but so is this "movement"
http://www.infowars.com/kentucky-cop-sh ... -ferguson/

I...wouldn't use infowars as a source for anything.

[Alvecia]

and yet we say nothing when a black lives matter supporter shoots and kills a police officer...
I cannot take this hate movement seriously,
white supremacy are awful, but so is this "movement"
http://www.infowars.com/kentucky-cop-sh ... -ferguson/

Gee wizz, that the second inforwars link I've seen in the space of 5 minutes. Did Alex Jones and his pet conspiracy site suddenly become a valid source of news while I wasn't looking?
Get a better source.

[Trumpostan]

I don't think these people have long left. The focus is on them now and it won't go away. They'll continue to be shown up for what they are and become less and less tolerated, more and more ridiculed, and more and more of a financial liability for those siding with them.

The Tea Party? Yes you would be right, it is imploding right now, totally out of control, motivated by angst, fear and delusions.

They have utterly ruined peoples faith in anyone whining about oppression. We literally cannot solve issues of sexism and racism until this movement is destroyed and it's adherents made to grow up.

Not that people like you ever had any faith in anyone 'whining about oppression'. We literally cannot solve issues of importance to this country until the Tea Party is destroyed and its adherents forced to grow up and start accepting that you might get your own opinion, but you don't get your own facts.

Compared to the dark ages that was the W presidency, the US is doing very well indeed with Barack Obama, especially economically speaking. BLM adresses a very relevant and important issue, which is a police culture that for decades has structurally and disproportionately targeted black people and has worked to cover up any misdeeds by the cops themselves, with massive collusion between police officers, prosecutors, grand juries and police unions to circle the wagons around racist murders such as Tamir Rice and the guy in Chicago last year (where they attempted to buy off the family so the racist murderer cop could stay on the force).

Those are real issues, and unless you are lily white (which is what most of those complaining about BLM are) you have likely experienced this police culture (or the store owner culture).

Unlike the phony issues that the rabid Tea Party brings to the table. What is the Tea Party anyway but a front organization for a bunch of right wing extremists like the Koch brothers who want to abolish government regulation of corporations.

and yet we say nothing when a black lives matter supporter shoots and kills a police officer...
I cannot take this hate movement seriously,
white supremacy are awful, but so is this "movement"
http://www.infowars.com/kentucky-cop-sh ... -ferguson/

Gee wizz, that the second inforwars link I've seen in the space of 5 minutes. Did Alex Jones and his pet conspiracy site suddenly become a valid source of news while I wasn't looking?
Get a better source.

If you're a white supremacist, and you are short on facts and actual examples, you have to resort to conspiracy theory fantasy.

They're kind of like those who made excuses for the slave owners. "You know, I recognize that slavery was bad and that whipping people wasn't good, but maybe if the slaves had just obeyed their masters they wouldn't have been whipped". That sort of thinking. Or what passes for thinking in rabid right wing circles, brainwashed as they are by the nonsense that Fox News and its affiliates spout all the time. As if the 'white man' is the perpetual victim.

[Hakaan]

and yet we say nothing when a black lives matter supporter shoots and kills a police officer...
I cannot take this hate movement seriously,
white supremacy are awful, but so is this "movement"
http://www.infowars.com/kentucky-cop-sh ... -ferguson/

Gee wizz, that the second inforwars link I've seen in the space of 5 minutes. Did Alex Jones and his pet conspiracy site suddenly become a valid source of news while I wasn't looking?
Get a better source.

I could get any other news source but I chose info wars. Your leftist hypocrisy is ridiculous. You should stop using huff post or cnn as a source if I used your logic in news.

[Alvecia]

Gee wizz, that the second inforwars link I've seen in the space of 5 minutes. Did Alex Jones and his pet conspiracy site suddenly become a valid source of news while I wasn't looking?
Get a better source.

I could get any other news source but I chose info wars. Your leftist hypocracy is ridiculous. You should stop using huff post or cnn as a source if I used your logic in news.

It's got nothing to do with how right wing it is. It's got everything to do with how absolutely deluded it's founder is and it's bias toward factual inacuracies and often outright lies in order to push it's conspiracy agenda.

[Gauthier]

I could get any other news source but I chose info wars. Your leftist hypocracy is ridiculous. You should stop using huff post or cnn as a source if I used your logic in news.

It's got nothing to do with how right wing it is. It's got everything to do with how absolutely deluded it's founder is and it's bias toward factual inacuracies and often outright lies in order to push it's conspiracy agenda.

Translation: Infowars makes FOXNews look like the BBC.

[Neutraligon]

Gee wizz, that the second inforwars link I've seen in the space of 5 minutes. Did Alex Jones and his pet conspiracy site suddenly become a valid source of news while I wasn't looking?
Get a better source.

I could get any other news source but I chose info wars. Your leftist hypocrisy is ridiculous. You should stop using huff post or cnn as a source if I used your logic in news.

CNN is not leftist, Huffington Post is, but has it been used in this thread? You did it too is not a good reason to use a source that is known for lying. So...got an actual source?

[Trumpostan]

Gee wizz, that the second inforwars link I've seen in the space of 5 minutes. Did Alex Jones and his pet conspiracy site suddenly become a valid source of news while I wasn't looking?
Get a better source.

I could get any other news source but I chose info wars. Your leftist hypocracy is ridiculous. You should stop using huff post or cnn as a source if I used your logic in news.

There you go making another ridiculous comparison.

The Huffington Post is slanted towards liberal/progressive news, but not prone to ridiculous right wing fear mongering like Infowars or Breitbart. These things are not equal.

Just as BLM isn't a terrorist organization unlike the white christian organization once known as the KKK.

The right thrives on fear, and exporting that fear to its constituents. The right thinks politicians should give all the money to the rich and it'll somehow all trickle down (we're still waiting after 30 years but the right refuses to give up on this BS economic 'theory'). And on the right you see political candidates pandering to this fear, stoking up suspicion, seeking to deny women their rights (not unlike the muslims they always claim to hate so much) and relying on an age old book for their 'morals' despite this book advocating in favor of slavery, stoning and all that. And let's not forget the rabid hatred of 'intellectuals' and 'teachers' and education, seeking to eliminate inconvenient facts and substituting them with right wing dogmas supposedly laid down by Saint Ronnie (who would have been appalled).

Its been quite revealing to see white people expressing their fears about BLM... probably because white people know BLM has a point. Black people have been structurally victimized by white police culture. But as always, one black person doing something = proof of 'blacks are all thugs' and yet a white guy shooting up a school or church = a lone wolf and not part of a white culture that venerates guns ahead of school children.

[Gauthier]

I could get any other news source but I chose info wars. Your leftist hypocrisy is ridiculous. You should stop using huff post or cnn as a source if I used your logic in news.

CNN is not leftist, Huffington Post is, but has it been used in this thread? You did it too is not a good reason to use a source that is known for lying.

If anything, CNN leans towards DietFOX.

[Neutraligon]

CNN is not leftist, Huffington Post is, but has it been used in this thread? You did it too is not a good reason to use a source that is known for lying.

If anything, CNN leans towards DietFOX.

I tend not to watch CNN, simply because they tend to do terrible analysis (if any). I like 60 minutes.

Oh and a post and run.

[Alvecia]

CNN is not leftist, Huffington Post is, but has it been used in this thread? You did it too is not a good reason to use a source that is known for lying.

If anything, CNN leans towards DietFOX.

>DietFOX
>mysidesohgodmysides

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it's revealing trumpostan thinks I'm right wing because I have criticism of BLM and SJWs behavior, or indeed, thinks people in this thread criticising them are.

I can almost guarantee i'm more left wing than they are, and I know that a sizable portion of this criticism is from the left wing.

Most of the comments about BLM say their demands are reasonable, it's their behavior that is appalling, and they're shooting themselves in the foot.