Spooking suburban white folks by literally having the scary black man coming to them threatening to ruin their shit

ironically the pale pasty privileged lefties posting stuff like that are usually ‘exempt’ for their own rhetoric.

ie: “those white people are bad but i am an ally” lmfao, pathetic..

I'm not sure if this was pointed out, though I thought you yourself did: when you put yourself into a situation you don't have any legal right to be in, you lose the ability to claim self-defense.

OTOH, I just saw this picture of the shooter:



...which might give him that legality back, if he was some kind of cop-in-training.

I really really have to say I fucking hate the internet doxxing literally everyone.

Agreed. More often than not, there's no real threat of harm, it's just really fucking annoying having to deal with it.



Holy fuck that kid looks so soft and he should NOT be a cop. Guy clearly won't have any trigger discipline.

This post was edited by thundercock on Aug 26 2020 02:29pm

Which is why I point out, this could boil down to the crux issue of the legality of armed militias as a response to a government leaving the citizens helpless against violent looters.
The entire logical basis for self-defense being denied for proactive involvement is the state's monopoly on law enforcement, that vigilantism is illegal because its the state's exclusive responsibility.
When the state abdicates that responsibility, the only thing protecting the people and their livelihoods are the rooftop koreans like this guy
Its a question as much philosophical as it is legal. Can the state declare that citizens aren't allowed to defend communities when the state won't?

I figured this would be in your wheelhouse of hypotheticals


/e to elaborate: Say the facts line up and courts agree that the kid's actions were entirely in self-defense {within that immediate moment}, and the whole basis of prosecuting him hinges upon arguing that his decision to travel to the area with a rifle voids his justification. Then the prosecutor would be arguing that he assumed criminal liability by the act of traveling there armed, becoming responsible for any consequences. The argument would be that he had no right to act as a vigilante militiaman and protect homes/businesses. If he had such a right, if he was justified in arming himself and protecting someone else's community, he can't be prosecuted. The central question then being whether vigilantism during a riot when the government has willfully failed to protect the people, is inherently illegal.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Aug 26 2020 02:35pm

I think defending YOUR property or even something very local to your property (i.e. a house that's walking distance) is appropriate. If you're getting in a car and are traveling miles from your property, I think that's a really tough sell.

For example, I'm less than 10 miles from downtown LA (~45 minutes). It would be highly inappropriate for me to get involved in any sort of "keeping the peace."

No, like the TV show.

One day in a year from night time to morning, all crime is legal including murder. The other 364 days, all crimes is an instant capital punishment. On the "Purge Night", prisoners get the firing squad. No bullshit lethal injection.

Be sure to raise your fist for blm
https://m.imgur.com/a8ngXGI

This post was edited by duffman316 on Aug 26 2020 02:35pm

agreed, sadly it’s literally encouraged by the media since they claim it’s “relevant information”

remember cnn threatened to doxx some guy on reddit cuz he made the wrestling meme with trump and vince mcmahon with cnn’s logo imposed on the latter’s face

This post was edited by excellence on Aug 26 2020 02:36pm