Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Ruairi77]

Am I an expert on US gun law? No.

But self defence is legal.

If you attack someone to their head, that's an immediate threat to their life. If you attack someone when they are on the ground and vulnerable, that's cowardly.

What if it was you on the ground..... Straight ahead, somebody is taking a running drop kick to your head....somebody to the right of you is just about to follow it up with a skateboard to your head..... and if they fail, there is a larger mob behind them to finish you off.

here's a simple answer.
He is too young to even own that gun, never mind cross a state line with it.
A minor traveled across state lines with an illegally held gun.
That's premeditated.
He then cosies up to the cops who tell him they appreciate what he's doing.
They don't ID him.
He then gets in to a skirmish with unarmed protesters, kills two, injures two more.
He then walks towards cops responding to the gunshots with his arms up.
Pumps his fist when an APC rolls by.
Again the cops don't stop him, a kid with a long gun walking away from a shooting feet away from the cops.
He hops in to his car and drives out of state back to his home where his dad is a cop.

And somehow you're defending what happened.

 

[Prevenger17]

Only in America can a 17 year old boy travel hours from his house armed with an assault rifle, shoot loads of unarmed people and have a load of chumps line up behind him and say he was just defending himself. Utter joke of a country

 

[PhilM]

that applies to the protestors far more than it does to him though - they were after all in their city when this bloke pointed a gun at them.

Yes it does and I'm not defending his actions, far from it, but they've got to consider whether his original actions leading to the event were illegal.

Did he have a right to be there? Did he have a right to bear arms in a public space? Had he received any orders or instructions to leave or the otherwise?

Did he before the incident pose a threat of serious harm or death to others? Did he pose one when on the ground? Was his life at risk before or during the incident?

I don't know the full facts by the way or the full legality of what he did, in terms of State law or Federal; rather, I'm saying from my perspective it's not clear cut.

He shouldn't have been there and he brought this mess on himself, however legally that's not how it works does it?

 

[Ruairi77]

He probably sat down with his dad and watched that couple in St.Louis bang on about armed defence of property to a national audience at the RNC.

 

[Ruairi77]

Yes it does and I'm not defending his actions, far from it, but they've got to consider whether his original actions leading to the event were illegal.

Did he have a right to be there? Did he have a right to bear arms in a public space? Had he received any orders or instructions to leave or the otherwise?

Did he before the incident pose a threat of serious harm or death to others? Did he pose one when on the ground? Was his life at risk before or during the incident?

I don't know the full facts by the way or the full legality of what he did, in terms of State law or Federal, rather saying it's not from my perspective clear cut either way.

he's 17, a minor. He was breaking the law by being there with that gun.

 

[PhilM]

he's 17, a minor. He was breaking the law by being there with that gun.

Thank you. Then that will obviously play a part in the decision because he shouldn't have been there and was himself acting illegally.

I don't know the answer to this so perhaps you can help (genuine question): in the US does that negate the use of the weapon in a lawful* self-defence scenario?

*That itself is to be seen.

 

[Mr. White]

here's a simple answer.
He is too young to even own that gun, never mind cross a state line with it.
A minor traveled across state lines with an illegally held gun.
That's premeditated.
He then cosies up to the cops who tell him they appreciate what he's doing.
They don't ID him.
He then gets in to a skirmish with unarmed protesters, kills two, injures two more.
He then walks towards cops responding to the gunshots with his arms up.
Pumps his fist when an APC rolls by.
Again the cops don't stop him, a kid with a long gun walking away from a shooting feet away from the cops.
He hops in to his car and drives out of state back to his home where his dad is a cop.

And somehow you're defending what happened.

What a truly warped narrative of what happened. I hope you never get called up for Jury Service.

 

[d34noj]

A tad?
It takes six weeks to train to be an armed policeman in this country.
This guy shot a man seven times in the back in front of his kids.
The whole system is broken, no black person wants to get taken in to custody because they wont be treated like white people. So you end up with people resisting arrest due to a warranted fear of not being treated fairly and when they resist, the cops have no idea how to de-escalate the situation and it spirals quickly till one cop does something really stupid. Then the force and the police union close rank around the bad cop and fight tooth and nail to protect him.
This causes the division to deepen.
This is all happening because of racism in police forces and crazy gun laws.
Look at how the cops treated the white vigilante who killed two people.

Yes, a tad. I was being facetious.

All of that post sounds like an excuse to turn a known felon with a history of gun violence resisting arrest multiple times, then being shot possibly trying to arm himself into a racist attack by the police.

Why does everything have to end up as racism? Easy, lazy excuse for his behaviour and it's so ingrained and widespread now it's become a joke, and has marred the actual fight for equality.

Take the labour politician whining about getting pulled over for a stop and search BECAUSE SHE'S BLACK. No love, it's because organised black gangs are stealing cars and transporting drugs - you're in a Mercedes and you're black. Instead of blaming the police, blame the gangs. Or Anichebe complaining that he was pulled over. Don't drive over a kerb, you don't get pulled over. Don't blame the police, blame your driving you prat.

13% of the country is black, 14.6% are stopped and searched. You'd think by the way the media act it's only blacks that are stopped.

 

[Prevenger17]

What a truly warped narrative of what happened. I hope you never get called up for Jury Service.

Lol @ this gobshite

 

[Ruairi77]

Thank you. Then that will obviously play a part in the decision because he shouldn't have been there and was himself acting illegally.

I don't know the answer to this so perhaps you can help (genuine question): in the US does that negate the use of the weapon in a lawful* self-defence scenario?

*That itself is to be seen.

I'm not sure to be honest.
But it's also worth remembering that he broke the 8pm curfew.
It'd be very hard to prove self defense if you travel from out of state with an illegally held firearm knowingly breaking curfew.

 

[Ruairi77]

What a truly warped narrative of what happened. I hope you never get called up for Jury Service.

ok
a minor carrying an illegally held weapon traveled from out of state knowingly breaking curfew, got caught up in trouble and in a panic, shot and killed two people.
Thats the fairest I can be to him, not great is it?

Here's a hypothetical situation.
A bunch of white dudes celebrate the Eagles superbowl win in Philly by burning and looting stuff, a black kid is sick of their crap so he gets an illegal gun, goes out of his way to find the mob and gets in to a fight with them, he kills a couple of them because he gets scared. Do you think he gets the 'self defense' treatment? Do you think he gets to walk off the murder scene, long gun in hand waving at the cops?

 

[Tubey]

Key factor for me is that he's 17, therefore illegally having the weapon and, presumably, incapable of claiming self defence with it as a result..

I think that's murder. Bizarrely, if he held the gun legally it would probably be self defence. Such is the USA.

 

[PhilM]

I'm not sure to be honest.
But it's also worth remembering that he broke the 8pm curfew.
It'd be very hard to prove self defense if you travel from out of state with an illegally held firearm knowingly breaking curfew.

But again, does that negate his right to self-defence? I’m really not agreeing with what he’s done, but in a purely a legal sense does it remove his right?

He’s a minor, he’s been condoned by the police (per the curfew), had tried to flee and was under attack is how his defence I presume will spin it.

The events prior (first shooting) will obviously play a part in the wider proceedings and may undermine all this, but they’re valid questions to ask.

As others have said, the real catalyst for this tragic event is the lax gun laws, toxic culture and underlying racism.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Thug number two tries to smash him over the head with a skateboard. He gets shot in the chest for his troubles and dies. Oh well...

Ah look guys. Wanna be right wing internet hard man casually dismissing a loss of human life. Shock

 

[Tubey]

But again, does that negate his right to self-defence? I’m really not agreeing with what he’s done, but in a purely a legal sense does it remove his right?

He’s a minor, he’s been condoned by the police (per the curfew), had tried to flee and was under attack is how his defence I presume will spin it.

The events prior (first shooting) will obviously play a part in the wider proceedings and may undermine all this, but they’re valid questions to ask.

As others have said, the real catalyst for this tragic event is the lax gun laws, toxic culture and underlying racism.

Well it'd be like in the UK if you got attacked on the street and stabbed your attacker with a knife.

It's not reasonable force because you'd have used an knife you shouldn't have on you.

So with the gun being illegal, I think it's... Hmm... Manslaughter I'd guess.