Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official Protest-RIOT Thread*** Police Officers fleeing Seattle and urban areas. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Summer Wheat
- Start date
I followed everything closely. I am just now going to sleep. This is EXACTLY how I saw it play out. The only thing I will add is that either Mercado Media or the Lakota Lichtwalt stream interviewed four residents who lived right in front of where everything went down. He asked them what happened, and they stated that even before the rifle guy tripped and was attacked by skateboard/gun guy, he was actually hit in the head twice before tripping.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
Based on that video, That guy fired 100% in self defense. The guy who was shot had a pistol in his hand. Many were armed.
If an armed, rioting mob is swarming me, I'm shooting to defend myself and you would too.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
My question is why are they out there to begin with then?
Again, the one side shouldn't be doing the violence and/or need to be armed. But unless they are defending their property, I am not sure what the point of the the other group being out there and armed is either. IMO at some point the self defense argument doesn't fly if you know what is going on out there and decide to purposely go out with a gun and walk into it.
[icon]
Insoxicated
They were defending a business, as explained by @Bozeman Bruiser. There is footage of them standing out front peacefully protecting the business and got antagonized increasingly by rioters.
Angry White bald midget dude Yelling "shoot me #####" in this video (1:10ish) is reportedly the one who got shot in the head after chasing/cornering one of the guys defending the business and throwing a maltov cocktail at him (per Bozeman bruiser above).
See armed citizens protecting their business? Move on and burn/rob/destroy somewhere else.
It's asinine to me that some people see a felonious mob committing arson, robbery, And assault.... see them attack someone defending their property... and can somehow blame the citizen defending their property/family/selves.
Anyone with that mindset can miss me... you're on the wrong side of this one. If someone is retreating and you physically assault them with a deadly weapon, you deserve the lead coming your way. Period.
Boston
Footballguy
The leadership in these cities and states are beyond embarrassing...either make sure your streets are safe or ask for help if you can not...there is no middle ground.
H Jass
Footballguy
Scroll down to the first video in this article (btw, this article covers a ton on the shooting incidents and you can really piece together what happened). I think those second shots are when the dude with the pistol who has his arm shredded, first backs away with his arms raised, but then, inexplicably, tries to run kind of by the rifle guy and then gets shot in the arm. I really want to know for sure if the guy on the ground with the head wound is, indeed, the rabble rouser, smaller Steve Austin look a-like from the main protestor confrontation video. He really was acting crazy.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Thought I was clear, but I don't think either group should be out there doing what they are doing. What I am trying to figure out is - are they protecting THEIR business, or are they protecting A business? To me that is a distinction that needs to be made. I think is it's a bit different if I go down to Madison to try to prevent something bad happening to my business vs. going down to some random business to stand out front of it.
H Jass
Footballguy
He did look pretty darn young in those videos and still-photos. He also was wearing latex gloves. Covid? or Fingerprint adverse?
[icon]
Insoxicated
Those were not the same shooter. It was off to the side based on videos I saw. Lots of the videos here.
[GRAPHIC WARNING]
https://hoodsite.com/video-rioter-shot-head-kenosha-two-others-injured-trying-assault-shooter/
Once they stop trying to lynch the shooter he stands up and continues retreating to the police... puts hands up, tells the cops to go treat the wounded, then approaches a police car (presumably to tell them what happened)
Thats how it appears so far.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
I don't think anyone is saying there is no problem or justifying riots. Explaining why people may feel differently is not the same as condoning and justifying.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Workhorse
Footballguy
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Remember when that Riverco dude was mocked endlessly and I think banned for predicting this type of thing?
H Jass
Footballguy
Ugh, while seeing the video of the dude's shredded arm is objectively gross, it doesn't bother me as knowing he's likely ok. Seeing the footage of the dude basically seizing after getting shot in the head (though not much gore at all), don't think I can un-see that. :(
[icon]
Insoxicated
I've been saying this for a couple years too. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Nobody in their right mind wants to be a cop now, so you're getting a force of either aggro vindictive types, of people not competent enough for other roles... both of which will result in more police violence issues. This is a self-feeding loop.
People have generally been okay with letting protests do their thing.... then Arsonists started to burn #### down and patience started wearing thin.
Now rioters are Mistaking that patience as weakness and attacking Random folks. Swarming cars, attacking diners peacefully eating on a patio, etc.
Patience is wearing thin, and a LOT more of these idiots are going to begin facing consequences for these actions. Not endorsing either side, just being realistic... these Mobs aren't going to be able to continue burning ####, attacking people, etc without getting shot.
Workhorse
Footballguy
Funny how you didn't quote the clear racial overtones of the word from your own link:
lynch
"To lynch is to murder, or unlawfully kill. When an angry mob kills someone they believe is guilty of a crime, they lynch that person."
When a mob of armed People swarm and attack an individual, use of the term lynch is entirely appropriate.
Through history, when a group of people murders someone, especially by hanging him by the neck, they are usually said to lynch him. This was unfortunately not uncommon during the Civil Rights struggle of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the American South: if a white community believed an African American had done something wrong, they would sometimes lynch him. Lynch is named after Justice Charles Lynch, who condoned mob justice during the American Revolution.
It's an inflammatory word choice. As I said initially, be better than this.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Trying to paint people a certain way is so tiring
[icon]
Insoxicated
Everyone involved in these shootings was white, stop trying to be woke and injecting race where it isn't a factor. If you require use of a nerfed vocabulary, maybe this isn't the forum for you. Or just ignore me. Feature is right up there in the menu up top. Makes zero difference to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
So is was whitey shooting whitey. Bad thing someone was shot, good thing is there should be no riot over this one.
The mob has no fear and has been allowed to do as they please in many cities so expect more of these type of incidents.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Can we all agree that mobs are bad....violent mobs are bad. And that armed vigilantes are bad as well? Defend yourself and home...but don't go seek it. I agree with KP earlier that its one thing to defend your own business or home (though, I think defending the business is not a wise move)...but if they are out there just "defending the neighborhood businesses", sorry, you are also acting outside the law. And when everyone arms themselves against other citizens, no good can come of it.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Yes..totally agree. When mobs are allowed to rule the streets without intervention then people arm themselves to protect lives and property. It is a vicious circle.
"So called "peaceful" protests should happen during the day where people speak and have conversation about issues. The nightly gatherings are intended to be peaceful, not leading to solving an type of problems, only as we have all seen making things much worse.
[icon]
Insoxicated
I agree that I would never go out to try to defend a business that I didn't own. That's asking for trouble that I want no part of.
I don't THINK I'd go defend my own business if I was properly insured, but I can't blame folks who do. For many that's their entire livelihood. Their life. Anyone demonizing them for attempting to protect that has a horribly skewed perspective, IMO.
Armed "Vigilantes" (not really the best term given these folks generally aren't initiating violence, but acting in defense), are certainly not helping matters by grouping on corners near riot areas. That said, I place the VAST majority of the blame on the instigators.... the folks committing robbery and arson, the ones approaching, screaming at, and sometimes assaulting or throwing moltov cocktails at the "Vigilantes". Nobody in that scenario is innocent, but this is on the rioters.
Hopefully as people begin to stand up to them, they'll become less emboldened and stick to less violent and destructive means of protest.
It is interesting to note that the majority of the folks smashing cars, burning buildings, etc in last night's videos are indeed white. There's little doubt that socialist/anarchists, NOT BLM, are the main driving force behind these incidents when they get ugly. It's unfortunate that BLM is getting pulled into this by many Trump supporters.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Are you saying they're equally wrong? If not, how do they compare?
On a scale of 1 (not wrong) to 10 (totally wrong) what's your score for:
- Guy rioting with a baseball bat intent on smashing store front window
- Guy who just loves his neighborhood (not store owner) with a baseball bat intent on defending store front from the guy who wants to smash it.
- Store owner with a baseball bat intent on defending store front from the guy who wants to smash it.
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
No...I am not saying they are equal.
And id put 10 on the first guy. Less on the store owner but that and the middle will depend in who initiates any actual violence
[icon]
Insoxicated
To be clear, this is dependent on local laws, however in most areas this is happening open carry is perfectly legal. This has been covered in many articles, and generally the "armed militia" types that are providing overwatch commit no crimes, and respect curfews where imposed. While I don't disagree that it runs the risk of helping escalate things... it's perfectly within their rights and the vast majority are extremely peaceful and just trying to stop criminals from destroying their neighborhoods.
jamny
Footballguy
I agree. While there are racial components to this, it seems more about "eat the rich" class warfare than racially motivated.
[icon]
Insoxicated
You don't think socialist/communists are involved in this? I suggest you get on Twitter...
To be clear I don't think all socialists are violent rioters. Never intended to imply that. However there are indeed socialist/communist groups aligning with the antifa/anarchist types and are heavily involved in this riots. There's little doubt there's an overt attempt to destabilize the country right now. Anyone not seeing that isn't paying attention.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
It's impossible and futile to separate BLM, defund police, "summer of love", and anarchists and others into different groups for purposes of assigning blame.
Supporters of each can be found in every recent anti-police/anti-authority incident and are also providing cover for each other for acts of violence.
What score on the store owner and what score on the neighborhood guy?
Assume the first guy hits them on the way to smashing a window.
Last edited by a moderator:
[icon]
Insoxicated
I would agree here.
BLM is pissed (justifiably) and GENERALLY protests in a fairly organized and peaceful manner. There are bad apples, and there are idiots co-opting the message to attack innocent people, but generally speaking I think the BLM movement is getting some undue heat. There's some opportunistic looting that occurs at some of these events but generally I think that's peripheral to the core movement.
Antifa/Anti-Capitalist/Anarchists are driving a sub-movement that are opportunistic criminals.... they are of the "Eat the Rich" mentality, and try to run under cover of legitimate protests to burn, attack police, destroy businesses, etc. They're becoming increasingly coordinated. They're well funded (From somewhere). They're the biggest problem we face right now, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
[icon]
Insoxicated
IMO:
On a scale of 1 (not wrong) to 10 (totally wrong) what's your score for:
10 - Guy rioting with a baseball bat intent on smashing store front window
3* - Guy who just loves his neighborhood (not store owner) with a baseball bat intent on defending store front from the guy who wants to smash it.
1 - Store owner with a baseball bat intent on defending store front from the guy who wants to smash it.
* Assumes he's standing there peacefully unless violence is initiated by dip#### rioter. He's undoubtedly adding an element of escalation and providing another opportunity for a flashpoint, but he's lawful and morally sound in his actions.
On a scale of 1 (not wrong) to 10 (totally wrong) what's your score for:
10 - Guy rioting with a baseball bat intent on smashing store front window
3* - Guy who just loves his neighborhood (not store owner) with a baseball bat intent on defending store front from the guy who wants to smash it.
1 - Store owner with a baseball bat intent on defending store front from the guy who wants to smash it.
* Assumes he's standing there peacefully unless violence is initiated by dip#### rioter. He's undoubtedly adding an element of escalation and providing another opportunity for a flashpoint, but he's lawful and morally sound in his actions.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Not sure why people are surprised that bad things happen when rioters and vigilantes collide. If only there were some sort of government-run force that could police the community instead.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I think the problem may be that the indicated force appears unable to do so with indiscriminately injuring and killing innocent people?
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I agree on store owner and rioter. If you bring a bat, you are no longer a protestor you are a rioter.
As for the guy who loves his neighborhood, there are a variety of questions I have.
When you say “the neighborhood” it sounds like the guy lives nearby (let’s say within 2 mile radius?). I don’t have a problem with this, and rate it a 3 as well. If you’re arming yourself and driving an hour to where the protests are happening and standing across from protestors/rioters and exchanging verbal barbs it isn’t helping anything, and I’d rate it a 10. Proud boys/antifa showing up to protest/counter protest in body armor and helmets are all 10. It simply shouldn’t be allowed.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It's sad beyond words that there isn't a serious policy discussion about policing beyond defund or send in the Feds. It's just a ridiculous lack of leadership.
Last edited by a moderator:
[icon]
Insoxicated
That's an interesting rating.
So people running around with bats smashing and burning things = 10
Guy from one town over coming and standing with a bat trying to stop an innocent business from getting smashed or burned = The Same?
I'm not gonna lie... that sounds kinda silly.
I'd put someone driving in from a town over as maybe a 4. They're still obeying laws, not instigating, and are attempting to protect an innocent family's livelyhood.
Bottom Line:
Blaming a nonviolent individual for defending someone's business from criminals/arsonists/thieves is like blaming a woman for her rape because she was wearing a minidress.
Did the sexy outfit possibly increase her risk of being raped? possibly. Is it against the law for her to wear that dress, or should she expect to be subject to violence/crime for doing so? No. definitely, not a perfect analogy in the sense that the woman wasn't trying to STOP crime by her actions, whereas the others were.
Last edited by a moderator:
[icon]
Insoxicated
The rioters want that Police force removed.
Until they're calling for them once an armed citizen defends himself against their attacks... then they scream for the Police.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
What I want: Police officers held accountable when they violate people's rights.
What I actually got: Anarchy, and social justice slogans at basketball games.
[icon]
Insoxicated
Yep. Right now nobody wins.
Its' a ####show of epic proportions and there are absolutely some nefarious forces funding and organizing this destabilization.
It's a pretty sad/disappointing time to be an American.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
