Video shows Wisconsin police shooting a Black man multiple times as he enters a car

[Tears of the Cows 1,213]

Just now, Saucer said:

 

 Who's arguing that he should've been there, much less armed? Why did you take the Jerry misdirection bait? 

I don’t know either way, I’m saying I’ll leave it up to the jury. He had intent as he came, but he (may) have self defended. Does one cancel the other out? 
 

 

im saying I don’t know, just trying to say how i see it. 

[jehurey 3,276]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

 Who's arguing that he should've been there, much less armed? Why did you take the Jerry misdirection bait? 

you are arguing that..........by omission.

 

You TIRED TO SKIP that part.........and have us consider his self-defense rights.

 

When he doesn't get to have any in the first place.

[Tears of the Cows 1,213]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

How is it malicious intent to want to protect property from law-breaking rioters? That's a rich one.

It isn’t. It’s totally fine. But not with a gun if it’s illegal for you to possess. 

[jehurey 3,276]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

How is it malicious intent to want to protect property from law-breaking rioters? That's a rich one.

Sorry, your bullshit doesn't work.

 

He took a weapon that is not his.........and he went out into the public street.

 

I like how you are now committing to MORE STRETCHES of logic because your original claim is so weak.

 

You're just digging the hole for yourself even deeper.

 

And I'm not gonna stop you. I'm gonna pop a beer and sit back while you do so.

[54212 432]

Just now, jehurey said:

you are arguing that..........by omission.

 

You TIRED TO SKIP that part.........and have us consider his self-defense rights.

 

When he doesn't get to have any in the first place.

 

I tried to skip the moronic argument that wanting to protect property from law-breaking rioters shows malicious intent? You're in full retard mode today, aren't you?

[Tears of the Cows 1,213]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

you are arguing that..........by omission.

 

You TIRED TO SKIP that part.........and have us consider his self-defense rights.

 

When he doesn't get to have any in the first place.

Well I think he does. If I murder someone and you see it, you are not allowed to murder me.. I could defend (and end up killing you) and be fine. But I’d still be charged with murder for the first killing. 

[jehurey 3,276]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

I tried to skip the moronic argument

intentionally.............because your entire "self-defense" musing simply don't have any water if we realize that he committed a crime in the first place.

 

Its simply not gonna work, champ.

[54212 432]

Just now, jehurey said:

Sorry, your bullshit doesn't work.

 

He took a weapon that is not his.........and he went out into the public street.

 

I like how you are now committing to MORE STRETCHES of logic because your original claim is so weak.

 

You're just digging the hole for yourself even deeper.

 

And I'm not gonna stop you. I'm gonna pop a beer and sit back while you do so.

 

You keep dodging the question because you know your argument is retarded: Why is it malicious to protect private property from law-breaking rioters?

 

 

[Tears of the Cows 1,213]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

You keep dodging the question because you know your argument is retarded: Why is it malicious to protect private property from law-breaking rioters?

 

 

He had a gun illegally

he Was from out of state, presumably trespassing on the property to begin with 

 

those are the only two things I can think of 

[jehurey 3,276]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

You keep dodging the question because you know your argument is retarded: Why is it malicious to protect private property from law-breaking rioters?

 

 

Because he ran out into a public street with a weapon he's not supposed to.

 

The danger never came to him...........when he walked out of his own home with a weapon into the street, there was no threat

 

Sweetie............this is not hard. You're asking these questions merely to stall for time.

[jehurey 3,276]

Just now, ghostz life matters said:

He had a gun illegally

he Was from out of state, presumably trespassing on the property to begin with 

 

those are the only two things I can think of 

jesus christ.

 

Saucer should take that as an easy out and simply type "oh i didn't know he was out of state"

 

I'm trying to help him, here.

[54212 432]

Just now, jehurey said:

intentionally.............because your entire "self-defense" musing simply don't have any water if we realize that he committed a crime in the first place.

 

Its simply not gonna work, champ.

 

If I walk across someone's yard and thereby trespass, and they shot at me, I've forfeited my right to self-defense? You're a retard.

[Cooke 2,033]

Ok im locking this

[Tears of the Cows 1,213]

Just now, Saucer said:

 

If I walk across someone's yard and thereby trespass, and they shot at me, I've forfeited my right to self-defense? You're a retard.

See this is where I’m hung up. I don’t know if one would cancel the other out or not. It really all depends on how this started I guess. 

[Tears of the Cows 1,213]

Just now, Cooke (not admin cant help said:

Ok im locking this

Why

[54212 432]

2 minutes ago, ghostz life matters said:

He had a gun illegally

he Was from out of state, presumably trespassing on the property to begin with 

 

those are the only two things I can think of 

 

He was protecting the car lot and he wasn't from out-of-state. How does that show malicious intent?

 

 

[jehurey 3,276]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

If I walk across someone's yard and thereby trespass, and they shot at me, I've forfeited my right to self-defense? You're a retard.

That's amazing.

 

Too bad that isn't what happened here.

 

Hey I can do that too.

 

If Freddy Krueger jumps out of my dreams......I have the right to grab the nearest gun to use on him.

 

Damn, what a solid argument.

[Tears of the Cows 1,213]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

He was protecting the car lot and he wasn't from out-of-state. How does that show malicious intent?

 

 

Yes he was from Illinois he was just charged with fleeing state lines when he went back home. 
 

and again, the intent was bringing an illegal fire arm to a protest 

 

if he was 18 and there was clear evidence it was self defense (why was that guy chasing him) I’d say it’s open and closed self defense but that isn’t the case here

Edited August 26, 2020 by ghostz life matters

[54212 432]

1 minute ago, ghostz life matters said:

See this is where I’m hung up. I don’t know if one would cancel the other out or not. It really all depends on how this started I guess. 

 

You can't try to kill someone for walking on your lawn.

 

https://reason.com/2020/06/02/are-people-allowed-to-use-deadly-force-to-defend-property/

[jehurey 3,276]

Just now, Saucer said:

 

He was protecting the car lot and he wasn't from out-of-state. How does that show malicious intent?

 

 

he took a gun that he has no authority to use. and you would to prove that he saw this threat that spurned him to get the weapon in the first place.

 

you don't have any such proof of those things.