General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWow. These stats should be EVERYWHERE
New: Data shows right-wing vigilantes & paramilitaries have confronted or attacked anti-racist protesters about 500 times since cops killed George Floyd in May. This includes at least:
64 assaults
38 attacks by car
9 shootings
3 deaths
https://huffpost.com/entry/white-vigilantes-kenosha_n_5f4822bcc5b6cf66b2b5103e
Link to tweet
?s=20
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)dawg day
(7,947 posts)He probably wasn't a professed vigilante, but he definitely came from the suburbs to make trouble. He just got bail, which is unusual in Indiana for a murder case.
I think maybe he should be added. He killed a teenager.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/11/tyler-newby-given-bond-murder-case-exceptional-circumstances/3342876001/
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)his friend were approached by a group of 10 and he was shoved to the ground. Then he pulled the gun and fired.
All the facts aren't in, or public, but on the face of it this seems like it has elements of self defense. The DA himself says it's a difficult case, so one wonders it's a murder charge, not manslaughter or something else.
More like a tragedy than a murder.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)When someone brings a gun to a protest, and someone else ends up killed, well, "self defense" doesn't work, especially when there's pushing and shoving going on, instigated perhaps by the troublemaker with the gun.
This "self defense" becomes rather hollow when he's the only one around with a gun.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we certainly don't know what would have happened had he not shot the guy.
And the guy's friends are not exactly unbiased.
And why not self defense. I am completely anti-carry and see the gun as a large part of the problem, but if it was legal to carry at the time, why not apply "Castle Doctrine" and self defense? If he was threatened by 10 guys, what should he have done?
dawg day
(7,947 posts)You aren't in "your castle" when you're on a city street.
Even if he was "defending himself" (and this is by no means certain), he brought a gun deliberately into a volatile situation. He came from out of town. He was reportedly looking for a fight.
Now let's say I get into a shoving match with someone-- even saying that's what happened-- or an exchange of insults.
The other person has his body.
I have a gun.
I shoot to kill him.
We're stretching "self defense" into that "stand your ground" situation in Florida. "Your honor, I thought I was in danger! I had to defend myself!"
Thing is, we fight with bodies, we get bruised.
He "defends" with a gun, someone gets killed.
We're seeing too much of this aggressor with a gun, getting into a fight, and "defending himself" by shooting the other person, who doesn't have a gun.
They're already saying that the little Shittenhouse was "defending himself" by shooting the people who were trying to take his gun away so he couldn't shoot anyone else.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)splitting hairs. We don't know his intentions when he showed up and can assume he was scared when pushed around. And that's about it.
Evidence will show up at trial, evidence will be suppressed, and pundits will tear the thing apart when it's over.
He shot a guy. The trial will tell us more. The last thing I want to do is defend him-- he is not an innocent victim. But prejudging him just leads to more trouble.
FakeNoose
(32,356 posts)... that it was outside trouble-makers who were coming in to interfere with our peaceful demonstrations over the death of George Floyd. It could have turned into an ugly shitshow - masked trouble-makers threw bricks into store windows, and other troublemakers set a police car on fire.
However our police kept their cool and didn't allow things to escalate. Our police chief even went on the news and said it was outside trouble-makers. Things returned to calm after a few days and the trouble-makers were found and dealt with in court. No shootings or beatings happened in our city, and damage was kept to a minimum.
Not so in other cities where the police were quietly (secretly) encouraging the outside trouble-makers who came in pretending they were BLM activists. I'm glad to be a resident of the City of Pittsburgh, and I salute our local police for doing a great job keeping the peace!
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)However, it makes the assertion that the 2nd amendment was primarily to arm the population to hunt down escaped slaves.
While no doubt this was on the minds of some, I always thought it was because of fear of federal governments. The concept of a militia was always revolutionary-- if the federal govt. became oppressive, or invaded the states, the militia was there to fight it off. The framers were far too familiar with the violent proclivities of their European forebears.
British law had long supported the right of the individual to defend himself, so there's that, but that doesn't seem to have been a major focus of the framers.
Anyway, the violent proclivities of our modern police are the problem now, and the militia is there with them as part of the problem, not the solution.
Beartracks
(12,761 posts)Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)My Tweeter handle is the same as it is here on DU. So any other DU'ers that tweets, drop by and tweet me sometime.