View Full Version : More conflict in Albuquerque shooting involved
mindfold
06-16-2020, 13:35
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/16/877772554/protester-in-albuquerque-wounded-during-shooting-at-rally-over-removal-of-statue
We all knew something like this was going to happen sooner or later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's a lot of different groups and influences that are heavily pushing us to kill each other while the opportunity is ripe leading into November. Many different motivations, but I think we're in for a rough four and a half months.
Video shows multiple "protestors" attacking the guy in the blue shirt prior to him pulling a gun FWIW. I don't have a comment on his reaction, only that the majority of the media is neglecting to accurately represent it.
ETA: There's also video of him pulling a protester to the ground prior to the attack. As in most every case, it appears to be one that everybody has shit on their face. I wonder what the DA will do with it. Because his earlier action constitutes a potential chargeable assault, it could potentially revoke his self-defense affirmative defense to the latter act, but NM law is in question so who knows. He (shooter) definitely escalated in the first instance. It also doesn't take a genius to know that pulling a gun amid protesters is very unwise for a ton of reasons, even if they are trying to whack you.
Bailey Guns
06-16-2020, 13:50
I read about this earlier. The reporting is so one-sided and biased...even more so than usual...that it boggles the mind. Protesters attempting to destroy property = good. Armed citizens = satan. Even the leftist governor all but praised the protesters and said the non-anarchist types, the armed protesters, were only there to cause trouble with the anarchists.
Fucking ridiculous.
There's a lot of different groups and influences that are heavily pushing us to kill each other while the opportunity is ripe leading into November. Many different motivations, but I think we're in for a rough four and a half months.
Do you promise it will only be that long?
Supposedly the shooter is the son of a sheriff. With a crowd screaming things like "I'll fucking kill you!!!", not sure what his options were. Death, or try and stay alive and deal with this in court?
As to instigating, it could be argued that everybody there was looking for a fight.
Do you promise it will only be that long?
It depends on the incubation period of an unintentional pregnancy resulting from the negligent application of sodomy geese.
-- Monty Python and the Twenty-Twenty.
hollohas
06-16-2020, 14:15
He may have done something earlier, but in the video I saw leading up to the shooting, he was hit, retreated a good distance and was then attacked. Not sure about NM law, but in many states, even if someone is an initial attacker, once they retreat, there is no justified defense against them. So the mob attacking him is pure assault by them regardless of any possibility he may have been the initial aggressor.
So, does that mean the shooter is untitled to self-defense since he was very clearly retreating?
It depends on the incubation period of an unintentional pregnancy resulting from the negligent application of sodomy geese.
-- Monty Python and the Twenty-Twenty.
Makes murder hornets seem like a cake walk.
He may have done something earlier, but in the video I saw leading up to the shooting, he was hit, retreated a good distance and was then attacked. Not sure about NM law, but in many states, even if someone is an initial attacker, once they retreat, there is no justified defense against them. So the mob attacking him is pure assault by them regardless of any possibility he may have been the initial aggressor.
So, does that mean the shooter is untitled to self-defense since he was very clearly retreating?
Optics. In the circumstances, it's not likely a court would let him even begin to make the argument, and he's at the mercy of the court (one judge), not actually at the mercy of the law. And as we're all admitting, we don't know if NM has that exemption, we just know CO does. And even then, the way that would apply is mostly irrelevant, all that does is make it so the mob can't argue justification in attacking him, it doesn't actually re-grant his ability to argue self defense (if in CO)
As the initial aggressor (without justification), he would lose his application of lawful use of deadly physical force if that was in CO. 18-1-704(3)(b):
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
On an unrelated side note, I once knew a guy that spent something like 30 years in prison for what we might perceive to be justifiable self-defense (in the moment)
It started at a bar, and one guy suggested they step outside and he agreed. They fought for a short while, and then the other guy pulled a gun to kill him, there was a contest for it and he ended up getting control of it, and killed the other man with the other man's firearm.
But, because it originated in combat by agreement, he had no application of an affirmative defense for lawful use of deadly physical force and prosecution was successful. 30 years of his life lost.
The original argument started over the old method of calling dibs on playing next at a pool table (using coins). He ended up being in the wrong, because there was a sign in sheet he wasn't aware of.
That's a pretty big derail of course, but the point being, don't place ourselves in situations that can easily escalate out of control, because people can die for the stupidest garbage, or land in the can for decades over a technicality.
That's a pretty big derail of course, but the point being, don't place ourselves in situations that can easily escalate out of control, because people can die for the stupidest garbage, or land in the can for decades over a technicality.
That's the intellectual argument, but then logic tells me that those in disagreement sitting in silence and avoiding conflict will end up being ruled by the noisy mob.
That's the intellectual argument, but then logic tells me that those in disagreement sitting in silence and avoiding conflict will end up being ruled by the noisy mob.
Valid argument, but not applicable to blue shirt (who threw a protester to the ground). As far as attending though, agreement.
My CRS citation is a bit off too, only (3)(a) is applicable to blue shirt,
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or (b) is applicable to the protesters. Basically in CO and in most places, if you're the initial aggressor you lose application to any self-defense claim, and if you clearly withdraw and then they attack you, they lose their application to lawful defense as well. Even though technically you could argue "that only applies to the other person" - the woman, a court isn't likely to agree with that argument for optics, nor do they have to.
I was referring to the idea conceptually. I wasn't speaking to the individual in this case because IANAL and don't care to commit the time to find the New Mexico statutes.
In '93 Eugene Baylis here in Colorado Springs went into the Star Bar and opened fire. He fled, followed by a ton of bikers. In the resultant shootout, he killed two and wounded two. His defense attorney successfully argued that it was self defense since he had broken off the initial attack and the bikers followed him.
A combination of ineptitude of the DA and the bikers not doing themselves any favors in court (read: lying under oath and getting caught dong it) and he got COMPLETELY off.
Except for the federal weapons charges (Feds don't like it when you bring hand grenades to a gun fight).
O2
https://apnews.com/0d078d35503adc8c909692bccd151171
Another video angle of the encounter. A bit more graphic.
https://twitter.com/SALIDmag/status/1272962710989307909
Great-Kazoo
06-16-2020, 17:29
In '93 Eugene Baylis here in Colorado Springs went into the Star Bar and opened fire. He fled, followed by a ton of bikers. In the resultant shootout, he killed two and wounded two. His defense attorney successfully argued that it was self defense since he had broken off the initial attack and the bikers followed him.
A combination of ineptitude of the DA and the bikers not doing themselves any favors in court (read: lying under oath and getting caught dong it) and he got COMPLETELY off.
Except for the federal weapons charges (Feds don't like it when you bring hand grenades to a gun fight).
O2
https://apnews.com/0d078d35503adc8c909692bccd151171
I knew one of the guys killed, we had talked about another mc a few days before. . IIRC Baylis opened fire with an AK.
Bailey Guns
06-16-2020, 18:30
Another video angle of the encounter. A bit more graphic.
https://twitter.com/SALIDmag/status/1272962710989307909
I know there were issues prior to the shooting. But just looking at that video I'd say it's gonna be pretty easy for his attorney to argue he was in serious danger.
Aloha_Shooter
06-16-2020, 18:51
So let me get this straight. Guy has crowd advancing on him menacingly and voicing threats. He uses pepper spray several times and they still advance. At this point, he pulls his firearm and uses it.
It seems fairly clear cut that he can claim he was in fear of his life or bodily harm at this point but the political and media types immediately jump to hate crimes. Sounds like there was a lot of hate alright -- coming from the crowd.
Can't wait for more details because the story related in the news article sure doesn't support the statements from the political types IMO.
The New Mexico Governor and Albuquerque Mayor are trying to pin it on the militia.
In '93 Eugene Baylis here in Colorado Springs went into the Star Bar and opened fire. He fled, followed by a ton of bikers. In the resultant shootout, he killed two and wounded two. His defense attorney successfully argued that it was self defense since he had broken off the initial attack and the bikers followed him.
A combination of ineptitude of the DA and the bikers not doing themselves any favors in court (read: lying under oath and getting caught dong it) and he got COMPLETELY off.
Except for the federal weapons charges (Feds don't like it when you bring hand grenades to a gun fight).
O2
https://apnews.com/0d078d35503adc8c909692bccd151171
IIRC he ultimately died in a shootout in the Mesa County desert like a couple years ago. Started shooting at deputies out of the blue as they walked towards what they thought was an abandoned van.
ETA: Here's the link: https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Man-acquitted-for-1993-Colorado-Springs-bar-shooting-killed-in--483989461.html
SideShow Bob
06-16-2020, 19:22
I’ll just leave this here.......
81920
Aloha_Shooter
06-16-2020, 19:31
I’ll just leave this here.......
81920
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Bailey Guns
06-16-2020, 20:53
I was curious why he singled out that guy to be the bullet sponge. Now it's apparent why. I wonder if those knives(?) were collected at the scene by the PD?
Well, what did everyone expect?
BPTactical
06-16-2020, 21:48
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Yup.
One thing I think we can all take away from this and other recent incidents- stay the hell away from these situations.
Chaos is coming.
Dont go to it.
Let it come to you.
If the triggerman in this situation would have stayed away from the area he would be at home with his wife instead of sharing a cell with Bubba right now.
We all hate what is happening right now and we all want to see a stop put to this BS.
But right now the scales are not tipped in our favor. It would not have mattered one iota if this man would have been sitting at a light in his car minding his own business and was drug out of it by protesters, beaten like Reginald Denny and with his dying breath shot one of the perps.
He "attacked" the "peaceful protestors", regardless of what the facts are.
It wouldn't matter if this guy was protecting a bus full of nuns from being gang raped by the mob.
He was wrong.
The media will spin it that way.
Keep your mind in the middle and stay frosty.
I was curious why he singled out that guy to be the bullet sponge. Now it's apparent why. I wonder if those knives(?) were collected at the scene by the PD?
He was also the guy who had just hit him in the head with a skateboard, every bit as deadly as a baseball bat. You can see the skateboard in mid air in that pic.
I think his right hand is just in the foreground of his belt. I don't know what's in his left hand, but am pretty confident that it's not a comb.
?Juan de O?ate es muy enojado!
Mexicanos, Pueblos, destruyendo la estatua!
?Viva Espa?a!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_O%C3%B1ate#:~:text=Today%2C%20O%C3%B1ate%2 0remains%20a%20controversial,El%20Paso%2C%20Texas% 20in%202006.
https://youtu.be/Tmy-EUvKX3I?t=52
Video shows multiple "protestors" attacking the guy in the blue shirt prior to him pulling a gun FWIW. I don't have a comment on his reaction, only that the majority of the media is neglecting to accurately represent it.
ETA: There's also video of him pulling a protester to the ground prior to the attack. As in most every case, it appears to be one that everybody has shit on their face. I wonder what the DA will do with it. Because his earlier action constitutes a potential chargeable assault, it could potentially revoke his self-defense affirmative defense to the latter act, but NM law is in question so who knows. He (shooter) definitely escalated in the first instance. It also doesn't take a genius to know that pulling a gun amid protesters is very unwise for a ton of reasons, even if they are trying to whack you.
Not condemning anyone but if you are carrying you should never, under any circumstances, escalate a situation or make it physical. I think it certainly does dampen your defense argument. You want to always be able to show you avoided confrontation at all costs until your life was on the line or the likelihood the court wont side with you goes way up
That being said I dont know all the facts so perhaps the facts are it was escalated outside of his control.
Not condemning anyone but if you are carrying you should never, under any circumstances, escalate a situation or make it physical. I think it certainly does dampen your defense argument. You want to always be able to show you avoided confrontation at all costs until your life was on the line or the likelihood the court wont side with you goes way up
That being said I dont know all the facts so perhaps the facts are it was escalated outside of his control.
I dunno about anyone else, but I find myself much more on my P's and Q's when carrying. At least, I'm more aware of it.
Many people with common sense would not go to that kinda place at a first place.
JohnnyDrama
06-17-2020, 11:09
Anybody wonder what is in that backpack? I've had smaller loadouts for overnight trips in the desert.
I dunno about anyone else, but I find myself much more on my P's and Q's when carrying. At least, I'm more aware of it.
Me too. Which is why I have a hate the fact that people typically only quote the first sentence from Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society."
That makes it sound as if everyone is on good behaviour only because they fear being shot.
The full quote: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Makes it quite clear that it's the ARMED person that's on their best behavior to avoid having to use deadly force.
In other words most people completely misunderstand what the quote is saying.
O2
Recognizing that some haven't seen the videos:
The issue isn't with his attendance at the protest, but prior to this shooting, he was walking through the crowd of protesters, and apparently got pissed off at one specific woman with her arms up in close proximity, walking next to him barricading him from getting closer to the statute, so it appears unprovoked, he grabbed her and literally threw her on the ground. Undoubtedly, her actions would led to frustration, but it didn't appear that she was escalating to physical force or restraint etc. against him prior to his escalation at any time.
That precipitated protesters coming after him. I bet there's a lot of people here that would have come after him if they saw a guy yank a woman and throw her to the ground too out of the blue.
There's little doubt he was in fear from his life from Mr. Knife guy, and certainly Mr. Knife guy and Mr. Skateboard guy had no justification, many of the others were pursuing to "get a license plate" e.g. to report the assault, but I think the big question for a prosecutor/jury is :
Did he have the power to avoid the confrontation in the first place... e.g. by not throwing a woman to the ground? And that right there is where he's probably going to be in the can (or probation or whatever) no matter what his justification for shooting is, both for assault in the original instance, and for whatever NM's equivalent law is for attempted homicide of some degree, which he'll have to plead down. That's how this appears to roll from the outside.
DireWolf
06-17-2020, 12:05
...one specific woman with her arms up in close proximity, walking next to him barricading him from getting closer to the statute, so it appears unprovoked, he grabbed her and literally threw her on the ground....
You appear to have a very strange understanding of the word "unprovoked" (and that's assuming no deliberate intent to use disingenuous language)...
You appear to have a very strange understanding of the word "unprovoked" (and that's assuming no deliberate intent to use disingenuous language)...
You left out:
Undoubtedly, her actions would led to frustration
Legally, it is unprovoked physical violence. It's not acceptable provocation to use physical violence when someone pisses you off. The "she pissed me off by being mouthy and her arm was in my way" is never a valid excuse for "provocation" to physically assault anyone, whether someone you know (spouse) or someone you don't (protester), you'll get charged.
To escalate to physical violence and throw someone to the ground, a person needs actual physical provocation beyond being unable to control their own emotions, being frustrated, or potentially being an asshole. Most people have that kind of personal restraint. Blue shirt, obviously does not. And if someone does not have that personal restraint, they need to stay the heck away from hostile situations, especially when being there* of their own volition.
ETA: Fixed it right "their".
Rucker61
06-17-2020, 13:24
"What is Battery?
The New Mexico criminal statutes define battery as the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of another, when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner. Striking another person with a fist during an argument or pushing someone are straightforward examples of battery. A more unusual example is touching another in a sexually suggestive manner through the person?s clothing, without the person?s consent."
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/new-mexico-aggravated-assault-laws
If I were the shooter, this is what I'd charge the woman with.
"What is Battery?
The New Mexico criminal statutes define battery as the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of another, when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner. Striking another person with a fist during an argument or pushing someone are straightforward examples of battery. A more unusual example is touching another in a sexually suggestive manner through the person?s clothing, without the person?s consent."
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/new-mexico-aggravated-assault-laws
If I were the shooter, this is what I'd charge the woman with.
Prosecutor elects to charge, often at the request of a RP, occasionally mandated by law to charge, but they are otherwise not obligated to charge anything no matter what someone demands. Even on plain-text of your description of a description it doesn't match. She had her arm up and stood in the way. Probably was being mouthy, who knows. Even if/when they touched because he wanted to go x and she was standing at y, he's intentionally touching her just as much as she is touching him. At best, if you could find a statute of impeding access to a public right away or something, if such a thing exists, that could apply, because she keeps moving to block his way. Even then, a prosecutor -elected - isn't going to charge that woman for anything, and it all fails at the consideration that courts are not actually courts of law, in the sense that a judge's personal bias and public optics determine anyone's outcome; the law is hardly applicable from the inset.
"The female protester shoved my eyeglasses into the bridge of my nose and into my eye with her arm!"
I do also love the sentiment.....citizens wouldn't feel the need to protect monuments if the fking police chiefs and politicians were not nationwide having police stand back and let these things go on and happen.
BPTactical
06-17-2020, 16:06
Don't start no shit......Won't be no shit.
Applicable to all sides of this situation.
Great-Kazoo
06-17-2020, 16:20
Don't start no shit......Won't be no shit.
Applicable to all sides of this situation.
I try avoiding areas where there's serious potential for confrontation.
BPTactical
06-17-2020, 16:29
I try avoiding areas where there's serious potential for confrontation.
Which was the point of my post on pg 3
SideShow Bob
06-17-2020, 16:43
I?ll delete a bad remark. And bite my tongue.
I?ll delete a bad remark. And bite my tongue.
Speaking of biting my tongue.....
My 2020 mottos are:
"More I become opinionated, less opportunities I would receive."
"More I become opinionated, dumber I get."
I had a very successful year to suppress my opinion face to face due to way less social interaction from covid19.
However,I think I am using this platform to express my opinion and let some steam out.
[flamingo]
JohnnyDrama
06-17-2020, 19:12
Don't start no shit......Won't be no shit.
Applicable to all sides of this situation.
Very true. However in this case there is a segment of the population that still resents what the Spanish did 400 years ago. I have a hard time believing most people really think their lives would be better if the Europeans had not landed in North America.
DireWolf
06-17-2020, 19:54
...
Legally, it is unprovoked physical violence.
...
Can you prove it was really unprovoked? (rhetorical question;provocation is subjective)
"Pissed off" is not the issue...
Was he accosted at "contact" distance by an aggressor? Did she make any physical contact whatsoever? Regardless of the answer to that, did he think she may have a weapon or or otherwise feel in immediate danger? Did she perhaps look feverish and he was worried about a face-full of 'Rona-spittle? (thus potentially in fear for his life)
Deadly force at that point would in no way be justified; however, given what's known about the circumstances, I'd bet that a solid shove/push to the ground could easily be defended as self-defense using appropriate and justifiable force...
Very true. However in this case there is a segment of the population that still resents what the Spanish did 400 years ago. I have a hard time believing most people really think their lives would be better if the Europeans had not landed in North America.
I would rather be alive than die with horses with many Spaniards brought.
Christopher Columbus brought a host of terrible new diseases to the New World
Julia Calderone, Business Insider
Oct 12, 2015, 12:13 PM
christopher columbus
Christopher Columbus is shown landing in the West Indies. Wikimedia Commons
When Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic Ocean and touched down in North America in 1492, he changed the world forever. He bridged the "old" world in Europe, Africa, and Asia with the "new" world in the Americas.
But along with a new wave of settlers, he also brought with him a devastating suite of scourges.
The Native Americans' immune systems were not equipped to handle this. Along with their own set of diseases at the time, Columbus' arrival created a devastating concoction of maladies.
"It was a culture clash, obviously," Stephen Prescott, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation president, told the OMRF news site. "But it also launched a clash of infectious diseases."
These infections were disastrous. OMRF reports that their impact was more catastrophic than the Black Death in medieval Europe, which is estimated to have killed 25 million people in just five years, between 1347 and 1352.
Of the estimated 250,000 natives in Hispaniola, Columbus' first stop in the Americas in 1492, new infectious diseases wiped out a staggering 236,000 indigenous people by 1517 ? nearly 95% of their population.
Medical records were sparse or flat out didn't exist back then, so it's difficult to say exactly where and when certain diseases emerged. But here is an inexhaustive list of 30 diseases that were believed to have either been introduced to the new world ? or worsened ? in the post-Columbian era, which we found in a 1992 study in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology:
1. Smallpox
2. Measles
3. Influenza
4. Bubonic plague
5. Diphtheria
6. Typhus
7. Cholera
8. Scarlet fever
9. Chicken pox
10. Yellow fever
11. Malaria
12. Lyme disease
13. Q-fever (bacterial disease carried by cattle, sheep, and goats)
14. Leishmania (parasitic disease)
15. Whooping cough
16. African sleeping sickness (parasitic disease)
17. Filaria (parasitic disease)
18. Dengue
19. Septicemic plague (one of the three main forms of the plague)
20. Schistosomiasis (parasitic disease)
21. Anthrax
22. Botulism
23. Tetanus
24. Toxoplasmosis
25. Taeniasis (tape worms)
26. Staphylococci
27. Streptococci
28. Mycotic diseases (fungal diseases)
29. Syphilis
30. Legionellosis (bacterial disease)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/diseases-columbus-brought-to-americas-2015-10%3famp
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 20:02
Almost like a virus being brought here from China...
Almost like a virus being brought here from China...
So far entire world received Sars, Swine flu, covid19. I bet we will get more. I mean 1/5th of probability that any disease will come from PRC. Any place can generate disease.
Problem entire world has is that HOW PRC handled it prior to spreading to the rest of the world.
Sadly those people received many diseases as a gift, but those disease could have came 500 years ago or 500 years later.
Oh yeah they had no vaccines, treatment, nor antibiotics.
Great-Kazoo
06-17-2020, 20:27
Can you prove it was really unprovoked? (rhetorical question;provocation is subjective)
"Pissed off" is not the issue...
Was he accosted at "contact" distance by an aggressor? Did she make any physical contact whatsoever? Regardless of the answer to that, did he think she may have a weapon or or otherwise feel in immediate danger? Did she perhaps look feverish and he was worried about a face-full of 'Rona-spittle? (thus potentially in fear for his life)
Deadly force at that point would in no way be justified; however, given what's known about the circumstances, I'd bet that a solid shove/push to the ground could easily be defended as self-defense using appropriate and justifiable force...
why is why those magic words should (if remembered under stress, with adrenaline going) I'd like to speak with an attorney, before i say anything else.
Or what i yell at the tv. ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY
Very true. However in this case there is a segment of the population that still resents what the Spanish did 400 years ago. I have a hard time believing most people really think their lives would be better if the Europeans had not landed in North America.
Johnny you get the same news I get. Crazy how native Americans are being exploited on the news as victims of Spaniards 400 years ago. They fail to recall Santa Fe was sacked and 400 Spanish men women and children were murdered.
rock_castle
06-18-2020, 10:07
Serious charges dropped. Now facing battery for allegedly pushing that woman and misdemeanor carrying concealed without permit.
Great-Kazoo
06-18-2020, 13:34
Serious charges dropped. Now facing battery for allegedly pushing that woman and misdemeanor carrying concealed without permit.
pending more investigation and calls for witness. be curious who comes forward. As the short vid clearly shows the guy being assaulted and attacked with.............deadly weapons.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-mexico-protest-idUSKBN23P08W?taid=5eeae7dd87586b0001d20e69&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter&fbclid=IwAR0jnePuUKvbDMn6cwrcn7uh7bxzciC2tuCeCcZuS dd8ekg1EOItt3hsXxM
Serious charges dropped. Now facing battery for allegedly pushing that woman and misdemeanor carrying concealed without permit.
Just looking at many known video so far, that sounds about right.
However he will probably get a maximum sentence.
So it turns out the Abq pd where there before the protesters hiding around a corner and they would not have come out except for the shooting. Looks like the police chief and city council new of the protest before hand and decided to let the protesters destroy public property. It seems to me that the police could have guarded the statue and that would have been the end of it, but that would have not made it news worthy. The whole thing was a stunt and the guy in the blue shirt screwed it up.
Great-Kazoo
06-28-2020, 07:41
So it turns out the Abq pd where there before the protesters hiding around a corner and they would not have come out except for the shooting. Looks like the police chief and city council new of the protest before hand and decided to let the protesters destroy public property. It seems to me that the police could have guarded the statue and that would have been the end of it, but that would have not made it news worthy. The whole thing was a stunt and the guy in the blue shirt screwed it up.
It's not a stunt. But part of a nationwide plan to cause mayhem and the next step towards discrediting not only the elections, but trump .
They've already laid the ground work with biden's saying trump is trying to rig the elections. On top of the last 3 years of not accepting the election results would be, Un-American.
It's not a stunt. But part of a nationwide plan to cause mayhem and the next step towards discrediting not only the elections, but trump .
They've already laid the ground work with biden's saying trump is trying to rig the elections. On top of the last 3 years of not accepting the election results would be, Un-American.
You meant not accepting result from 20 years ago.
Many said 2000 Al Gore won.
[Coffee]
Great-Kazoo
06-28-2020, 10:02
You meant not accepting result from 20 years ago.
Many said 2000 Al Gore won.
[Coffee]
Many? You mean the Sore/Looserman ticket?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.