3rd shooting in Minnesota.

[ANNEE]

Oh?

Please explain how? Because the current course seems untenable. The American public will not stand for executing citizens every other week for the rest of Trump’s term.

And when I imply they can “kill with impunity while doing their job”. Who is going to turn them in and say “now you stop that right now!”? DHS? Trump? The Cartels? Certainly not local LEOs, nor the local sheriff.

And no, I don’t know how this plays out, but it’s just getting started; it’s already super dark.

Americans live by an ideology -- this does not really fit that ideology.  Hence protesting.

Hard core reality?  The meek will NOT inherit the earth.

[Solvedit]

I remember the days on ATS when people argued that the right to carry and bear arms was for when a government started treading on their rights??

so you're now saying his shouldn't have been carrying a weapon?? hmmmmmm....

The government wasn't treading on his rights.  

His side lost an election and he chose to interfere with enforcement of policies he didn't like.  

(Not that it isn't a little questionable why six agents weren't able to control him.)

[RazorV66]

Oh, so not having his papers on him when demanded for is also a death sentence. I think that was tried else where???

I remember the days on ATS when people argued that the right to carry and bear arms was for when a government started treading on their rights??

so you're now saying his shouldn't have been carrying a weapon?? hmmmmmm....

Not in that volatile situation. 

It was a really dumb idea.

[angelchemuel]

This particular law enforcement -- is NOT working.

The public is making it very clear that they do not support military gestapo type tactics.

How many actual illegals have they detained without killing anyone -- as in legal citizens?

How many legal citizens have they detained?  Even deported?

How many Native Americans need to get arrested?

--------------------------------------------------

There are other ways.

So, instead of just asking questions, why don't you go and do your homework and provide the factual, irrefutable evidence of the statistics to your questions?
"the dog ate my homework"

[David64]

Oh, so not having his papers on him when demanded for is also a death sentence. I think that was tried else where???

I remember the days on ATS when people argued that the right to carry and bear arms was for when a government started treading on their rights??

so you're now saying his shouldn't have been carrying a weapon?? hmmmmmm....

Try this next time you're out and about.

Show up to a bar fight where the cops are out numbered and trying to restrain the combatants but their friends keep interfering....now walk into the middle of that with a gun on your hip.

Let us know how that works out.

OR...would it be completely stupid to put yourself in that situation ?

[ANNEE]

So, instead of just asking questions, why don't you go and do your homework and provide the factual, irrefutable evidence of the statistics to your questions?
"the dog ate my homework"

I did.

Questions tend to encourage discussion.

[Kurokage]

The government wasn't treading on his rights.  

His side lost an election and he chose to interfere with enforcement of policies he didn't like.  

(Not that it isn't a little questionable why six agents weren't able to control him.)

What election?? How is that anything to do with the thread??

We see all the Trump VOTERS here saying he shouldn't have had a weapon, when it was his legal right to carry.  They were all defending Rittenhouse on ATS for walking around with an AR15!

The administration tried to say he came at the ICE agents armed with a drawn weapon and was shot, the videos show nothing of the sort. He had his arms raised and had protesters pushed at him, then thrown to the floor whilst being pistol whipped/butt stuck.
His gun unholstered and removed, then shot 10x.





PLEASE READ
https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Our-Des...cal-Debate

[chr0naut]

So if someone kicks my door in and comes to harm me or my family and I shoot them, I should "suffer consequences" ?

Cowboy movie ?

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...6d181f.gif]

Sure.

When you shot, you intended to harm or kill a human being. You had means, motive and opportunity. It's a slam dunk case.

Shooting someone does not de-escalate a situation, because after the fact, it is likely that someone ends up injured or killed, who was not injured or killed before. By shooting someone, even in defence, you have made the situation worse.

Also, in your country, firearms are extremely available. If you have one, then the home invaders will also likely be armed and if their intent was to cause you and your family harm, they will have their firearms loaded and out ready to use. However, you will be at a disadvantage because it is unlikely that you have your firearm similarly ready. So, if you attempt to get your gun out, it is just giving superior numbers of armed and ready to shoot assailants an excuse to shoot first. It takes time to ready a firearm, load, aim and shoot. So, in that situation, a firearm would not be protective.

A strategic consideration of minimising harm to yourself or your family is to offer no resistance and to surrender replaceables in the hope that you would all be spared. Getting away also may be possible. If someone kicks in your front door, getting the family out the back door and dispersing, sounds like a good strategy. Even if you were trapped, you could as a last resort try an appeal to their humanity. You would have better survivability than risking a gunfight where you are outgunned and unprepared.

This also begs the question, if someone were coming to harm you or your family, what might you have done to motivate that? Were you involved in some sort of criminal activity (drugs, theft or fraud) that made the invaders think that you and your family were a likely target?

If the home invaders were motivated merely by robbery, have you considered just giving them some money so they would leave? If you are a normal person, you can earn more money afterwards. If you are extremely wealthy, then you probably have significant fiscal resources that they can't touch, i.e in an investment or in a bank. How much money is worth the risk of injury or death, to you and your family?

Also, in the moment, you are assuming that they are intending harm to you or your family, but how can you actually be really sure before you pull the trigger?

This world isn't a cowboy movie, nor is it John Wick.

[Kurokage]

Try this next time you're out and about.

Show up to a bar fight where the cops are out numbered and trying to restrain the combatants but their friends keep interfering....now walk into the middle of that with a gun on your hip.

Let us know how that works out.

OR...would it be completely stupid to put yourself in that situation ?

If I'm at a bar drinking and observe a 'fight' or argument and the police show up, I don't expect to be shot 10 times.

[angelchemuel]

I did.

Questions tend to encourage discussion.

You absolutely did not! Point me to your post where you gave links to reputable sources that gave you the figures you are asking about.
Yes, questions do...... hence the reason I asked you for the figures, instead of you posing questions and expecting others to go running around looking for the answers for you.
I don't have enough coloured crayons to explain this to you, but I'll waste one sentence and try........
If those are questions you are asking yourself, go and do your research, get the numbers, provide the evidence..... then pose your questions.
But I get it, you haven't yet mastered the art of adult debate/discussion yet.
"Where there is life, there is hope"