A left-wing protester at an antifa Denver rally shot and killed a conservative

Why should that armed security officer be able to defend himself and LEO not? Just asking.

Every person has the right of self-defense when attacked even to the point of deadly force. The key is for the use of force to be reasonable. That's a key factor in determining what happened in Denver.
 
That's my take, so far, too. Isn't it odd how two rich morons standing outside flourishing weapons at scary Negroes peacefully walking by is perfectly okay with some ppl, but a guy getting shot for spraying some substance at someone is outrageous? "We" find the two sets of rules to be priceless. :laugh:

There is a large dose of hypocrisy in those who support bias in who can kill in self-defense and who can't.
 
Every person has the right of self-defense when attacked even to the point of deadly force. The key is for the use of force to be reasonable. That's a key factor in determining what happened in Denver.

I know that Dutch. Thanks anyway. I was asking Owl Woman for a reason. Why is it acceptable in this case but not when an LEO faces the same situation and uses deadly force? Would she same the same thing if an LEO did the same thing during a riot? Curious as to the answer.
 
Defense is one thing. Kneeling on a handcuffed someone's neck till they're dead is quite another. If you can't see the difference, I can't help.

I know the difference. Certainly better than most on this board and in real life. So if that had been an LEO being attacked by a BLM member, you would have no problem at all with him/her using deadly force.
 
That is the Denver shooter. He also attended several Occupy events.

"I cant seem to whip away the tears today Michael Brooks was to young and just getting started #leftisbest #michaelbrooks I’m going to miss right-wing Mandela this is hard to accept.”

"2. Dolloff Sold Honey at Gun Shows, Posted Some Protest Photos, Made Anti-Trump Comments & Shared Occupy Democrat Posts"

https://heavy.com/news/matthew-robert-dolloff/
However, a series of dramatic photos show the man who died was touching the face of the guard and then sprayed the bear spray at him before the guard opened fire. You can see the photos throughout this story but be aware that they are graphic. The deceased man is a Patriot Muster Militia supporter who hasn’t yet been named, according to social media posts.

That's clearly self-defense on the shooter's part. He was attacked by the dead chemical terrorist.

4i4txq.jpg
 
Every person has the right of self-defense when attacked even to the point of deadly force. The key is for the use of force to be reasonable. That's a key factor in determining what happened in Denver.

In theory, that's correct, but we've already seen how D.A.'s will politicize this in order to appease the mob (like the Kyle Rittenhouse situation).

In practice, your right to self-defense is heavily dependent on the quality of local government. If the local government is composed of opportunists or political extremists, your right to self-defense is dependent on whether or not the person you shot is favored by the mob.
 
In theory, that's correct, but we've already seen how D.A.'s will politicize this in order to appease the mob (like the Kyle Rittenhouse situation).

In practice, your right to self-defense is heavily dependent on the quality of local government. If the local government is composed of opportunists or political extremists, your right to self-defense is dependent on whether or not the person you shot is favored by the mob.

Allowance should be made for differences among the 50 States. Lots of Laboratories of Democracy. A major problem, IMO, are those who keep wanting to legislate Federalist laws making all the states the same. Effectively nullifying the 10th Amendment.
 
Allowance should be made for differences among the 50 States. Lots of Laboratories of Democracy. A major problem, IMO, are those who keep wanting to legislate Federalist laws making all the states the same. Effectively nullifying the 10th Amendment.

For a lot of things, the concept of federalism is applicable, but civil rights are usually considered universal. I would consider the right to self-defense a civil right, and not one that should be subject to local political biases.
 
For self-defense? You're just proving you're an anti-gun LW asshole....again. It figures you're a POE.

4i4n87.jpg

Yeah,.....pretty sure you cant shoot someone in the head with a gun for pepper spraying you. If so,.....there are going to be a whole lot of dead antifa because they have been pepper spraying a whole lot of people.
 
Yeah,.....pretty sure you cant shoot someone in the head with a gun for pepper spraying you. If so,.....there are going to be a whole lot of dead antifa because they have been pepper spraying a whole lot of people.

Not to mention, this would open the door to cops shooting more people, along with more people shooting cops (since cops will often use pepper spray as a nonlethal use of force).
 
For a lot of things, the concept of federalism is applicable, but civil rights are usually considered universal. I would consider the right to self-defense a civil right, and not one that should be subject to local political biases.

All rights are, or should be, universal. The only right people don't have is to harm others.
 
Well, to not harm others except in defense of one's self or others. But it sounds like we're in agreement then.

Correct. Note that an attacker is breaking Rule #1 first by attemting to harm another. Such an attacker must suffer the consequences of their actions. In the event the defender overreacted, there might be consequences there too.
 
Back
Top