Race riots 2020

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
In Florida, notably, Black law-men, Black Police Detectives are bothered by the Castle Law where he or they say that people are dying unduly (innocent people killing criminals, and the innocent walk free). But to or for the individual that didn't suffer "imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm", the Castle Doctrine is a beautifully written Set of Principles.
Florida does have the castle doctrine, which typically applies to your home (and sometimes to your yard or vehicle, depending on your State).

Florida also has the stand-your-ground doctrine, which applies anywhere else that you have a legal right to be (including anywhere in public). It allows those who feel a reasonable threat of death or bodily injury to “meet force with force” rather than retreat.
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
The other major self-defense doctrine exists in the typically more liberal duty-to-retreat states, where you must retreat as far as reasonable to avoid a threat before using deadly force. There are various permutations of all three major doctrines. In short, you must know your State's law before exercising deadly force in a self-defense situation.
 
Last edited:

Pooch32

Sparrow
This may have been post already, if not ... take note and learn a thing or two (but see below, for Michigan law). You can not brandish a gun until you are in a self-defense situation.

(rhetorical) Does that mean until they smash your skull with a Bike Lock? Does that mean until they, from behind you, pour gas on you and set you alight?

These laws need to be challenged concerning your immediate person, your person in a moment of time and a person's desire to de-escalate (if we truly want to talk about an honest, decent and civilized person's Intent). Sometimes it takes decades, if not a hundred years to challenge a law. Laws on the other hand are drafted and passed every 6 months to a year - decade after decade.

white-woman-pulls-gun-black-mother-detroit-michigan-parking-lot-chipotle

https://www.tmz.com/2020/07/02/whit...mother-detroit-michigan-parking-lot-chipotle/


Michigan Compiled Laws §750.234e prohibits individuals from willfully and knowingly brandishing a firearm in public. According to MCL §750.222(c), the term “brandishing” as used in this statute refers to pointing, waving, or displaying a firearm with the intent to cause fear in another person.

The offense of brandishing a firearm in public is a misdemeanor under Michigan law that may result in up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $100 upon conviction. It should be noted, though, that this section does not apply to peace officers performing their official duties or individuals who are lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act.
Seems like she did everything right to me.


 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Seems like she did everything right to me.
They did nothing correctly.

1) You do not engage with irrational people, especially if you are armed. You walk away. An armed society is a polite society.

2) Once in their vehicle, they were safe. They should have driven away from the savages -- and then telephoned the police, if they wished.

3) They placed themselves in further jeopardy, both physical and legal, when they elected to exit their vehicle. What if the others also had a gun?

4) They brandished a firearm, and actually pointed it at someone, without the existence of any deadly threat (unless there was a weapon that I missed).

They did absolutely everything wrong here. If the local prosecutor decides to prosecute them, they are exposed to tens-of-thousands of dollars in legal defense fees. For what? So that the irrational savages can sit back and laugh at them -- and testify in court against them?

If you carry a firearm, you have a responsibility to know all applicable laws. You must de-escalate a situation whenever possible and exercise wisdom.
 

Pooch32

Sparrow
They did nothing correctly.

1) You do not engage with irrational people, especially if you are armed. You walk away. An armed society is a polite society.

2) Once in their vehicle, they were safe. They should have driven away from the savages -- and then telephoned the police, if they wished.

3) They placed themselves in further jeopardy, both physical and legal, when they elected to exit their vehicle. What if the others also had a gun?

4) They brandished a firearm, and actually pointed it at someone, without the existence of any deadly threat (unless there was a weapon that I missed).

They did absolutely everything wrong here. If the local prosecutor decides to prosecute them, they are exposed to tens-of-thousands of dollars in legal defense fees. For what? So that the irrational savages can sit back and laugh at them -- and testify in court against them?

If you carry a firearm, you have a responsibility to know all applicable laws. You must de-escalate a situation whenever possible and exercise wisdom.
Did you even watch both videos? The blacks blocked the car when they tried to leave (after threatening them) then when she got out were about to assault her when she drew her weapon.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Did you even watch both videos? The blacks blocked the car when they tried to leave (after threatening them) then when she got out were about to assault her when she drew her weapon.
False imprisonment does not pose a deadly threat, even if they were blocked by a vehicle. You call the police. Bodies blocking a vehicle? You back out slowly at 2-5 mph. Did these black folk have some kind of superpowers that they could block a one-ton vehicle with their bodies?

You cannot draw a gun against a simple physical assault, unless there is a disparity of force. It was two against two. No disparity of force.

I hope that you do not carry a firearm. If so, you are an accident waiting to happen.

How does this stuff even happen? If someone bumps into me, I apologize as a matter of course (even if not my fault). It was how I was raised. If someone makes a comment, I just keep walking. I'll just go into condition orange and listen for any steps approaching from behind.

Knowing the emotional nature of women, the man should have kept his wife in check (whether or not it was her fault) and escorted her away from the confrontation and away from danger. Men no longer act like men. That is how this stuff happens. They allow women to dictate the environment based on their emotions. Every single confrontation that I have seen, or heard about from friends, since COVID-19 began has been confrontations between women who could not control their emotions.
 
Last edited:

Pooch32

Sparrow
False imprisonment does not pose a deadly threat, even if they were blocked by a vehicle. You call the police. Bodies blocking a vehicle? You back out slowly at 2-5 mph. Did these black folk have some kind of superpowers?

You cannot draw a gun against a simple physical assault, unless there is a disparity of force. It was two against two. No disparity of force.

I hope that you do not carry a firearm. If so, you are an accident waiting to happen.

How does this stuff even happen? If someone bumps into me, I apologize as a matter of course (even if not my fault). It was how I was raised. If someone makes a comment, I just keep walking. I'll just go into condition orange and listen for any steps approaching from behind.

Knowing the emotional nature of women, the man should have kept his wife in check (whether or not it was her fault) and escorted her away from the confrontation and away from danger. Men no longer act like men. They allow women to dictate the environment based on their emotions.
You’re right. She probably should have let the pack of savages kick her skull in. Disparity of force is not appropriate unless maybe you’re lit on fire in addition to having skull fragments exposed on the concrete. I agree.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
False imprisonment does not pose a deadly threat, even if they were blocked by a vehicle. You call the police. Bodies blocking a vehicle? You back out slowly at 2-5 mph. Did these black folk have some superpowers? I hope that you do not carry a firearm. If so, you are an accident waiting to happen.
You’re right. She probably should have let the pack of savages kick her skull in. Disparity of force is not appropriate unless maybe you’re lit on fire in addition to having skull fragments exposed on the concrete. I agree.
You are not listening. These people were safe once they entered their vehicle. End of story. Unless someone smashed a window and tried to do them harm with a weapon or started shooting at them, they could not use deadly force. Once they exited the vehicle, it became -- at best -- mutual combat, for which there is some degree of criminal liability. That is the law. You need to educate yourself.
 

jordypip23

Ostrich
Gold Member
This may have been post already, if not ... take note and learn a thing or two (but see below, for Michigan law). You can not brandish a gun until you are in a self-defense situation.

(rhetorical) Does that mean until they smash your skull with a Bike Lock? Does that mean until they, from behind you, pour gas on you and set you alight?

These laws need to be challenged concerning your immediate person, your person in a moment of time and a person's desire to de-escalate (if we truly want to talk about an honest, decent and civilized person's Intent). Sometimes it takes decades, if not a hundred years to challenge a law. Laws on the other hand are drafted and passed every 6 months to a year - decade after decade.

white-woman-pulls-gun-black-mother-detroit-michigan-parking-lot-chipotle

https://www.tmz.com/2020/07/02/whit...mother-detroit-michigan-parking-lot-chipotle/


Michigan Compiled Laws §750.234e prohibits individuals from willfully and knowingly brandishing a firearm in public. According to MCL §750.222(c), the term “brandishing” as used in this statute refers to pointing, waving, or displaying a firearm with the intent to cause fear in another person.

The offense of brandishing a firearm in public is a misdemeanor under Michigan law that may result in up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $100 upon conviction. It should be noted, though, that this section does not apply to peace officers performing their official duties or individuals who are lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act.
I'm thinking the woman was influenced by the recent videoclip of the couple defending their St. Louis estate. Two questions. Is Michigan gun law different from Missouri gun law & would you say that the Missouri situation was actual self defense while the Michigan one arguably wasn't? Were the Missouri folks charged with a crime?
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Tailgunner is correct. This is the worst possible time for people to get on their imaginary high horse and "stick it to the savages". Once they were in their car they could have backed out slowly since any attempt to block them would be at least a form of unlawful imprisonment and therefore they would have had grounds to nudge them out of the way, just the way people are doing to protesters blockading streets.

Is it annoying that Latishas and Shaniquas are being empowered to be head-bobbling cunts to every white person they meet? Yes. I'm sure it's maddening. The question you need to ask yourself is "what hill am I going to die on over this issue" because that's a pretty shitty hill right there.

If they were blocked from getting into their car then that's one thing, but she literally got in the car then got out again. Mutual aggression, no matter which side you're rooting for. Tailgunner is also correct that from that point onward pulling a gun is an escalation on the white woman's part.

Keep your head, no matter how hard it is. This is a long game. It's not going to be settled in a parking lot on a lazy Wednesday morning.

p.s. Aside from knowing your local use-of-force laws like the back or your hand, it would be prudent to at least carry some kind of chemical repellent in your car for situations like this so your options weren't reduced to shooting or getting stomped. Hutus are becoming dangerously aware of how unlikely a white person is to shoot them these days, which is why the Shaniqua didn't bail when the gun was pulled but rather stood her ground. A can of mace on the other hand is something that is much easier to pull the trigger on and will really ruin her day. She might not tempt that outcome as such.

Again, within an understanding of your local use of force laws.
 
Last edited:

Pooch32

Sparrow
Fair enough. I didn’t realize you’re allowed to “nudge”. Regardless, we all know even if she shot the black in legal self defense she would go to jail anyway. If you’re white, Defending yourself against blacks is a crime, especially in a blue zone. I don’t bring firearms outside my home for that reason alone. I’m not even convinced if I shot a black breaking into my home that I wouldn’t be arrested.
 

Athanasius

Kingfisher
I'm with Tailgunner. You have to do what you can in these situations to de-escalate. Don't pull that gun unless you really think your life is in danger. Let them dent your car.

Once you pull a weapon, you're at the mercy of what the other person does. This white woman may have been thinking it'd scare them off. It will cause sensible people to consider very quickly whether it's a hill worth dying on, but stupid people with poor impulse control may react very differently. Then you have a deadly force situation. These people didn't look too bright, but thankfully they didn't try to rush her.

Now, if someone is in your house, that's a whole different situation.

One thing I'm trying to do much more, made easier by these stupid mask regulations, is to stay out of blue areas as much as possible.
 

uncledick

Woodpecker
Whether she was in the right or wrong it doesnt matter. If your white and near dishonorable blacks with phones and a chip on their shoulder that day, its only going to go one way, your funeral, being a career, life, or social well-being funeral that is. Solution? Maximum segregation. Got them in your workplace, quit, work somewhere else. Does your neighborhood have a large percentage? Move. Do you kids go to school with them? New school or relocate. Your church seems to have more everyday? Find a new denomination. Its to the point that proximity to blacks is becoming a liability, because for every honorable realtalk black guy, there is five of em that can destroy you with any little microaggression they deemed you committed, a macroaggression like dropping the N word? well your completely fked then. You cant hide, you be wont forgiven and you cant defend yourself from any of it.

Leave, find some peace of mind somewhere else if possible because this shitshow of racial revenge is going to get helluva lot more 1984.
 
Last edited:

Mike_Key

Robin
I'm thinking the woman was influenced by the recent videoclip of the couple defending their St. Louis estate. Two questions. Is Michigan gun law different from Missouri gun law & would you say that the Missouri situation was actual self defense while the Michigan one arguably wasn't? Were the Missouri folks charged with a crime?
From my understanding the Missouri St. Louis estate situation happened on Private property with HOA ("trustees of Portland Place") and by-laws that probably explicitly state you can defend your property, coupled with "southern" gun laws leaning toward or in favor of the Gun owner. I thought someone on Twitter immediately posted PDFs of the neighborhood by-laws stating defense of property, etc.

From 9 Hours ago
"Police said the McCloskeys heard a loud commotion in the street and saw a large group of people break an iron gate marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” signs. The video showed the protesters walking through the gate ..."


My understanding is they have not been charged. From 9 Hours ago --"Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner said her office was working with police to investigate, saying she was alarmed because “peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault.”

As for the difference in laws, I'm unsure but they are probably similar; that you cannot brandish.

Would I say whether each situation is actual self defense?

My take is this, Warren Vs. DC says that Police Officers are not obligated to help you. Period. In Washington D.C. the running joke is that Police are encouraged to not show up too soon at a crime scene - so that the City doesn't have to pay Worker's compensation should 'said Police Officer(s)' get hurt or be injured. This court case (Warren Vs. DC) and about 2 others cases are regularly cited by 2nd Amendment advocates. You are on your own.

This is why the Police Officer hiding scared during the High School mass shooting in Florida is not charged and will not be charge, he was detained for a Dog and Pony show.

Also, considering that there are communist-influenced lawyers and politicians in the USA that want to end the 2nd Amendment - I see the no-brandishing laws as a very aggressive maneuver to nullify a portion, a percentage, a major action, a Right found in the 2nd Amendment. Before you get angry with me, consider Open Carry laws and States.

"But we are talking about Michigan, we are not talking about Ohio, Wisconsin or Virginia or the 24 other States/Territories of The United ... ."

I know, I know ...

In 2013, when East Coast States created laws to thwart lawful gun owners they knew exactly what they were doing ...

I'm actually going to stop right here ...

Because truly I care, but not that much ...​

The law is very cut and dried ...

Yet we are very divided in jurisdictions and courts favoring one direction or another.

As I said earlier ...

There seems to be a question of "Who gets to survive, who gets to live ... the innocent or the criminal."

Ann Coulter's book titled "Demonic" highlights criminal court cases where Liberal Democrat jurisdictions released violent criminals that predictably went on to brutally, grotesquely and un-remorsefully torture and kill innocent people.

Anyhow, I'm exhausted ...

We are talking about Michigan ... there is something about "White Flight" in Michigan. That is sad - that it is even "a thing."

Anyhow

John 3:16
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
As an aside, I obviously can't advise anyone to break the law, but if one did happen to find themselves in a use-of-force situation with a hostile protected minority then one might consider that any footage the hostile protected minority is taking is most likely not being livestreamed and that a case could be made for the retrieval of any device that may have been used to record the altercation.

If your image goes viral then your life is seriously compromised. No footage? The cops couldn't care less about your individual case.

Personally I would rather risk copping a charge for minor theft or destruction of property a month later than end up trending on twitter today.

 
No disrespect black brothers out there, but this whole incident just begets the quest for segregation once more. I believe in a Christian Kingdom and Nation, where there is no such thing, but such a realm could not exist on the earth of today, so we have to do the next best thing in this degenerate hell we are stuck living in, to make it somewhat modest.

The more blacks go after (((certain))) interests the more the law gets cracked down and the official media narrative suddenly evaporates. I would like to see this trend continue, not to see the blacks lose their footing in their struggle for political whatever, but to hopefully wake them the hell up that whitey ain't trying to do him in, and never really has been.
 

Monty_Brogan

Woodpecker
Gold Member
No disrespect black brothers out there, but this whole incident just begets the quest for segregation once more. I believe in a Christian Kingdom and Nation, where there is no such thing, but such a realm could not exist on the earth of today, so we have to do the next best thing in this degenerate hell we are stuck living in, to make it somewhat modest.

The more blacks go after (((certain))) interests the more the law gets cracked down and the official media narrative suddenly evaporates. I would like to see this trend continue, not to see the blacks lose their footing in their struggle for political whatever, but to hopefully wake them the hell up that whitey ain't trying to do him in, and never really has been.
100%.

Think of how much money the average white family would save. I live in Chicago, parents are forced to send their kids to catholic schools from K-12 at an average of probably $7k a year. High school is even more.

Segregation would lead to a white baby boom that would rival the post war one. I would have 6 kids but I have costs I need to factor in.

But blacks would never go for it.

Drive past a white gas station in my neighborhood and a black one in the hood. You can tell the area by the gas station(s). Garbage everywhere, just like the differences in neighborhoods.

That’s why I support just giving them a state or two (MS and LA). That way they can spread out and have their “nice” neighborhoods and their not so nice ones.

But at the end of the day, it would turn into Haiti. And they know this. Which is why blacks don’t want segregation. Cause they wouldn’t be able to keep the lights and water running. Much less police it; LOL.

Well, Happy 4th of July Men.
 
Top