Man who pulled gun on crowd of BLM protestors found guilty - Polidicks

Looking back, my comment was pretty damn shortsighted amd poorly worded, my bad But yeah, you don't pull a fucking gun on someone unless you have intent to kill, that's gun ownership 101. Not to mention, having more magizines than a serviceman makes you pretty much suspect for anything.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51819755]do we really have to go through this with another person? You don't brandish a gun in public and you most certainly do not wave your gun at a crowd in the middle of a busy ass fucking protest. This dude is so in the wrong that I'm almost 100% certain that a random bystander with a CCW would be more justified pulling their gun on HIM then he was pulling that gun on the protesters.[/QUOTE] Did you even watch the video? The group was advancing on him, a few showing signs of aggression, and he fell threatened, so he pulled a gun. When they backed off he put the gun away. Would you rather he just got the shit beat out of him and then pulled his gun and started gunning people down? [QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51819754]oh well shit you got me you're right he didn't kill anyone i guess that settles it[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, you're right sorry, he definitely went to the protest with the intent to gun down innocent bystanders, sorry, must have missed it in his mass-shooting intent post somewhere.

[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51819786]why is this so hard for you to believe[/QUOTE] Cause he had the perfect chance to do it and yet didn't? If his intention was to shoot up a crowd, he could have. Man, if I ever see a person with a gun, I will call the cops, cause if they brought a gun to a public place, the only reason they would have done that was to needlessly kill people.

[QUOTE=Arrk;51819774]Did you even watch the video? The group was advancing on him, a few showing signs of aggression, and he fell threatened, so he pulled a gun. When they backed off he put the gun away. Would you rather he just got the shit beat out of him and then pulled his gun and started gunning people down? [/QUOTE] you cant shoot someone for walking towards you. Furthermore the "signs of aggression" are completely subjective body language. No one else was brandishing a weapon, no one had a raised fist. Furthermore if he was able to put that much distance between himself and the protestors before he pulled the gun he likely could've just walked away. Furthermore wildly sweeping your gun back and forth in a crowded public area is just about the stupidest possible thing to do. It puts a lot of people in danger and is about the most threatening thing you could possible do. If I was a bystander with a CCW and that fuck sweeped his gun past me I would've drawn my weapon on him because it looks like hes about to open fire on the crowd [quote] Oh yeah, you're right sorry, he definitely went to the protest with the intent to gun down innocent bystanders, sorry, must have missed it in his serial killer intent post somewhere.[/quote] this argument about intent is completely and utterly pointless, from both sides of the argument.

[QUOTE=Arrk;51819774]Did you even watch the video? The group was advancing on him, a few showing signs of aggression, and he fell threatened, so he pulled a gun. When they backed off he put the gun away. Would you rather he just got the shit beat out of him and then pulled his gun and started gunning people down?[/QUOTE] Even ignoring how much of a stretch that is, your argument still goes to waste as soon as you realise that a gun is an absoulte last resort.

[QUOTE=space1;51818905]he didn't shoot anyone, so I'd say the situation was handled very well from both sides.[/QUOTE] Escalating like this is the stupidest thing you could do. If literally anyone in the crowd had had a gun and reacted differently then this would be a very different news story.

[QUOTE=Arrk;51819745]Yes, he was a crowd gunner, a mad man with a gun, look at all the people he killed.[/QUOTE] Oh shit, well guess someone should call up some lawyers and judges because Charles Manson never physically murdered anyone either. Guess that settles that, pack it up people, get that wrongly convicted man out of prison! :downs: Guess since any terror plot foiled before it hurt anyone didn't hurt or kill anyone they're in the clear to just walk away because they didn't actually pull the trigger either. It's called criminal intent guy.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51820026]Oh shit, well guess someone should call up some lawyers and judges because Charles Manson never physically murdered anyone either. Guess that settles that, pack it up people, get that wrongly convicted man out of prison! :downs: Guess since any terror plot foiled before it hurt anyone didn't hurt or kill anyone they're in the clear to just walk away because they didn't actually pull the trigger either. It's called criminal intent guy.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I know! He was clearly intending to kill everyone in the crowd. Thankfully someone stopped him! Oh wait...

[QUOTE=Arrk;51820045]Yeah, I know! He was clearly intending to kill everyone in the crowd. Thankfully someone stopped him! Oh wait...[/QUOTE] Or just maybe, he was escalating a situation because he wanted "an excuse" to gun down people with different political views than him? Clearly the courts seem to think there's enough evidence pointing to him not being 100% acting in self defense, and I'm not going to disagree with them just because "he did "nothing illegal" and look at this cherry picked video of the situation!". It's not the first time someone's done something to instigate a fight in the name of politics. It happens quite often. Imagine the news story if he had done so, "Patriotic hero defends him self from violent BLM protestors" hmm? Sounds heroic yeah? Like someone who's fame seeking would want? There's a reason we see a rise in copycat murders after a serial killer is made public and such. People want to be known, they want to be famous, remembered. If not in fame, then for some infamy works just as well.

[QUOTE=Arrk;51820045]Yeah, I know! He was clearly intending to kill everyone in the crowd. Thankfully someone stopped him! Oh wait...[/QUOTE] Did you not the video with the cameraman clearly trying to ease tensions?

[QUOTE=OvB;51819256]Doesn't look like a lawful use of a concealed firearm to me.[/QUOTE] Should have pulled the trigger, the guy doesn't even have the balls to do it. It's funny since he probably would have had a stronger case for self defence if he just shot one person instead of waving a gun at a bunch of people.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;51818928]Note: he was found guilty of ten counts of "unlawful use of a weapon" (a felony), ten counts of "menacing" (a misdemeanor), and one count of disorderly conduct in the second degree (a misdemeanor). I'm not sure where the ten counts stuff comes from. [url=https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/ORS.aspx]A link to Oregon state laws[/url], the relevant sections are 166.220, 163.190, and 166.025.[/QUOTE] Seems he has a habit of pulling his gun out when he shouldn't. Carrying all that ammo very likely did not help him in court either.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51818873]Yeah, I'm not agreeing with this. I've seen video footage of this incident and he was getting followed by thugs being very purposefully intimidating and antagonistic.[/QUOTE] I don't know if anyone has chimed in on this, but I'm from there. The guy is a locally known antagonizer who shows up to protests and stuff like this for the sake of taunting people and filming their reactions, so I have no sympathy for the guy.

Even if he was being threatened by one or two individuals, the guy aimed at a general group of civilians completely uninvolved. Had he missed, he could have very easily injured or killed someone standing in the wrong spot at the wrong time. If he got spooked and was that ready to brandish his weapon, he should not be the owner of a CCW to begin with. You need insane trigger discipline and rational decision making to own a firearm and if you choose to negate the assumption that you have both of those things then you should not own one.

[QUOTE=Arrk;51820045]Yeah, I know! He was clearly intending to kill everyone in the crowd. Thankfully someone stopped him! Oh wait...[/QUOTE] That doesn't matter, he's still endangering the lives of others.

[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;51820189]I don't know if anyone has chimed in on this, but I'm from there. The guy is a locally known antagonizer who shows up to protests and stuff like this for the sake of taunting people and filming their reactions, so I have no sympathy for the guy.[/QUOTE] Well, now we know why he was carrying that much ammo...

Calling protesters thugs really conveys how you think about black people. If it was a bunch of "rowdy" white teenagers who had gun drawn on them by a black man would you have called them thugs, honestly?

[QUOTE=Dolton;51820760]Calling protesters thugs really conveys how you think about black people. If it was a bunch of "rowdy" white teenagers who had gun drawn on them by a black man would you have called them thugs, honestly?[/QUOTE] Over half the people advancing on him were white though?

[QUOTE=Arrk;51821164]Over half the people advancing on him were white though?[/QUOTE] You'll inevitably be called a racist if you criticize BLM protesters. I'm just ignoring it.

i understand carrying a gun for protection, but what the fuck is he doing with 120 rounds of magazines? one for every person? kinda overboard imo, like he was ready for a war or something

[QUOTE=Bertie;51821169]You'll inevitably be called a racist if you criticize BLM protesters. I'm just ignoring it.[/QUOTE] There are good and bad ways to criticize though. Calling them thugs isn't a good way.

Charges seem pretty justified here, sure "victim blaming" and all but I think he was quite literally asking for it, and unfortunately for him everyone else was civil so he didn't get to shoot people and pull the self defense card.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51819631]How many fucking bullets do you think you need for self defense dude? Over 95% of self defense incidents are resolved within 0-1 shots being fired. Having 120+ rounds isn't a self defense mechanism, who the fuck does this guy plan on protecting him self from in a firefight that requires him to discharge over 120 rounds, from a handgun no less, and have it not be resolved/the police arriving on scene? Please, do tell me of all the situations where law abiding citizens with no ill intentions are going to get into at least 10+ minute firefights that give you the time to reload at least 5 times without a second shooter to cover your reload and continue pumping out shots like crazy in between? Only an absolute loon carries 120+ rounds of ammunition in their pockets for "self defense" just to go down the street.[/QUOTE] Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. That much ammo is impractical and excessive. Don't discount the possibility that he's just stupid, though. I've heard of guys trying to conceal carry AR15 pistols, so half a dozen magazines doesn't sound [I]completely[/I] absurd, at least to me. The amount of ammo he was carrying is irrelevant by itself. Taken into account with the other facts of the case, I agree that it looks like he was looking for a fight.

Look, I've had a number of arguments about gun rights on these forums, and I've learned an awful lot about how people should handle their guns. One thing that I've almost always reached common ground on with people is that [I]people should know how and when to use a gun.[/I] Brandishing a gun as a show of force or an intimidation tactic is not legal, period. A crowd advancing towards you is not a reason to brandish a gun. A gun is something that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect, because it can (and will) take lives if you fuck up. You don't fire warning shots. You keep your finger off the trigger. You don't point it at people unless your life is genuinely threatened. This is a textbook example of how not to use a gun. I've gained a lot of respect for gun hobbyists and I've heard a number of really reasonable and understandable arguments for gun rights, mostly because there are people on these forums who are knowledgeable about guns and have shared their understanding that they need to be treated with respect. People who come into these sorts of threads and go "but they were walking towards him so it's okay to brandish," or the ones in past threads who went "but he just fired a warning shot he didn't aim at them" are absolutely no different than the people on the other side who go "guns are terrible and need to be melted and banned forever." It's ignorance. There was no good reason for this guy to brandish his weapon, period. His life was not in danger, period. This is why we need mandatory gun training and licensing - something I hoped a CCW license would've covered for this guy. [editline]14th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;51819985]Escalating like this is the stupidest thing you could do. If literally anyone in the crowd had had a gun and reacted differently then this would be a very different news story.[/QUOTE] This is the critical point, too. If someone else in the crowd felt that their life was in immediate danger because [I]a man was pointing a pistol at them[/I], and they drew their gun, this would've been a much worse situation. Believe it or not, but someone waving a pistol around towards a crowd is a [I]much[/I] more legitimate reason to fear for your life and act in reasonable self-defense than "they were walking towards me."

[QUOTE=Bertie;51821169]You'll inevitably be called a racist if you criticize BLM protesters. I'm just ignoring it.[/QUOTE] Depends on how you criticise BLM protesters tbh. Are they misinformed when they say black people get killed more by cops? Yes. Are they misinformed when they say black people get treated more violently by cops? No Are they misinformed when they say a gay pride parade is racist? Yes. Are they misinformed when they say racism is still a problem? No. Are you misinformed to say some BLM protesters (or people participating in BLM events) are unnecessarily violent and cause damage to property? No Are you misinformed to say all BLM protesters are unnecessarily violent and a thugs? Absolutely yes. Should BLM make bigger strides to ostracise those who use violence? Probably yes. Is BLM a [URL="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-inherently-racist/"]racist[/URL] or violent movement? No. If you call them thugs then you might be using the literal meaning of the word but it is also used as wolf whistle racism - seems innocent enough and can have plausible deniability "its not racism!!1!" but many who use it use it with a different intent than just being someone who is thuggish. Similar to the "all lives matter" thing, on the surface it seems to egalitarian and benign but people use is disingenuously as a way of illegitimising or trivialising the BLM message - ie black people are being mistreated and have a worse lot in life, according to BLM, because of their skin colour. So while stuff like "they are thugs" or "all lives matter" sounds so fair, not always though, the message is actually "black people are thugs", "its ok that they're being given longer sentences for the same crimes" and "they should stop complaining and know their place". Such things are used to change the narrative and reframe the blm protesters as aggressors or over entitled upstarts who got it ok and want more than is fair. By associating thug with blm or black in general people will think its a violent majority rather than a peaceful majority. Also BLM doesn't really have a central leadership - IMO they need one to stop protester turning into riots like in Ferguson. It's nice that its grassroots but grassroots on a topic so charged and anger inducing is going to cause problems. The issue with central leadership is it provides a target which can get defamed or arrested - something the reactionary members of the establishment would very much like to do. [editline]14th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Bertie;51821169]You'll inevitably be called a racist if you criticize BLM protesters. I'm just ignoring it.[/QUOTE] Also this idea that "everything is racist these days thing" is another way to illegitimise complaints about genuine racism. Sure political correctness is a bit nuts, its nice to have a benign joke about stereo types or hot topics like aids but there is legitimate harmful racism too. Sadly well meaning, albeit delluded/misinformed/overzealous people protest stuff which seems pointless to you and me (ie the cultural appropriation or I identify as a mayndolin bs). That kind of thing casts doubt on the entire social justice movement. Malicious people will jump on this and say "political correctness gone mad!" "can't say anything!!" "everything is racist!" as protection against criticism and ostracism when they are legitimately racist. This might be subconscious, it might be a way to rationalise their behaviour, they don't like the idea of being irrationally racist so they explain it away by shifting their own perceptions. Not calling you a racist btw or accusing you of that stuff but it is something I see a lot on facepunch and wanted to put it out there. Sorry to anyone who thinks cultural appropriation stuff is legit but imo its bs which stops cultural integration and deepens the divide between us. [editline]14th February 2017[/editline] Also what a surprise seeing space1 supporting a guy wrongly waving a gun at blm protesters. I'm so shocked.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51821427]Depends on how you criticise BLM protesters tbh. Are they misinformed when they say black people get killed more by cops? Yes. Are they misinformed when they say black people get treated more violently by cops? No Are they misinformed when they say a gay pride parade is racist? Yes. Are they misinformed when they say racism is still a problem? No. Are you misinformed to say some BLM protesters (or people participating in BLM events) are unnecessarily violent and cause damage to property? No Are you misinformed to say all BLM protesters are unnecessarily violent and a thugs? Absolutely yes. Should BLM make bigger strides to ostracise those who use violence? Probably yes. Is BLM a [URL="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-inherently-racist/"]racist[/URL] or violent movement? No. If you call them thugs then you might be using the literal meaning of the word but it is also used as wolf whistle racism - seems innocent enough and can have plausible deniability "its not racism!!1!" but many who use it use it with a different intent than just being someone who is thuggish. Similar to the "all lives matter" thing, on the surface it seems to egalitarian and benign but people use is disingenuously as a way of illegitimising or trivialising the BLM message - ie black people are being mistreated and have a worse lot in life, according to BLM, because of their skin colour. So while stuff like "they are thugs" or "all lives matter" sounds so fair, not always though, the message is actually "black people are thugs", "its ok that they're being given longer sentences for the same crimes" and "they should stop complaining and know their place". Such things are used to change the narrative and reframe the blm protesters as aggressors or over entitled upstarts who got it ok and want more than is fair. By associating thug with blm or black in general people will think its a violent majority rather than a peaceful majority. Also BLM doesn't really have a central leadership - IMO they need one to stop protester turning into riots like in Ferguson. It's nice that its grassroots but grassroots on a topic so charged and anger inducing is going to cause problems. The issue with central leadership is it provides a target which can get defamed or arrested - something the reactionary members of the establishment would very much like to do.[/QUOTE] You really nailed it - nuance gets [I]totally ignored[/I] in these discussions. For months I was called "the poster-boy of BLM" despite being a pretty vocal critic of many parts of BLM. People would just see that I supported it, generalize me into a made-up category of self-loathing whites who support BLM, and then that was it - they were happy to ignore whatever arguments I made because they pre-judged me as someone they didn't even want to listen to. When a BLM-related manifesto-type-thing was released and posted here, I read through it, noted which parts were agreeable and similar to the then-recent DNC Party Platform, and then explicitly criticized specific parts I disagreed with. Mostly how that manifesto viewed body cameras as a form of mass surveillance and a breach of privacy. The tribalism surrounding the BLM/ALM nonsense is so fucking infuriating, on both sides of the coin. I've criticized BLM to friends in real life, especially the Toronto branch, and suddenly they think I'm an All Lives Matter guy. If I say anything positive about BLM, then suddenly I'm in the "other camp" and I'm wrong no matter what I say. That kind of shit needs to stop. There are very real problems that need to be addressed, both in what BLM is concerned about and in how BLM operates. Unbelievably frustrating when people say "prejudice is dead" and then pre-judge dissenting opinions into a mental slot of "just ignore they're wrong."

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51821470]You really nailed it - nuance gets [I]totally ignored[/I] in these discussions. For months I was called "the poster-boy of BLM" despite being a pretty vocal critic of many parts of BLM. People would just see that I supported it, generalize me into a made-up category of self-loathing whites who support BLM, and then that was it - they were happy to ignore whatever arguments I made because they pre-judged me as someone they didn't even want to listen to. When a BLM-related manifesto-type-thing was released and posted here, I read through it, noted which parts were agreeable and similar to the then-recent DNC Party Platform, and then explicitly criticized specific parts I disagreed with. Mostly how that manifesto viewed body cameras as a form of mass surveillance and a breach of privacy. The tribalism surrounding the BLM/ALM nonsense is so fucking infuriating, on both sides of the coin. I've criticized BLM to friends in real life, especially the Toronto branch, and suddenly they think I'm an All Lives Matter guy. If I say anything positive about BLM, then suddenly I'm in the "other camp" and I'm wrong no matter what I say. That kind of shit needs to stop. There are very real problems that need to be addressed, both in what BLM is concerned about and in how BLM operates. Unbelievably frustrating when people say "prejudice is dead" and then pre-judge dissenting opinions into a mental slot of "just ignore they're wrong."[/QUOTE] Well it's really easy to make it "us against them" and anything "they" say is wrong. That's just the human nature sadly. While I agree, that BLM is trying to send the right message, most people only encounter the "blm blocked roads" type of posts, and don't even care about the message, since the way it was sent annoyed them.

[QUOTE=Arrk;51821164]Over half the people advancing on him were white though?[/QUOTE] Don't act like it was the white people being called thugs. Dog whistle all you want.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51821427]snipped for space value[/QUOTE] I can see how it can be interpreted as a racist remark I guess, it never even crossed my mind that referring to scary dudes walking towards you, pushing you around, and being intimidating as "thugs" could possibly be racist. I was never talking about the protesters as a whole. Some of them were courageously trying to defuse the situation at the risk of ire from both sides - one of them even got briefly arrested for it. I will admit that with further context and one of the posters here clarifying that he is a known antagonizer, I can understand why people were angry and followed him around, but still. The guy pushing him around, the guy following him shirtless with a keffiyeh tied around his face, the guy accusing the cameraman of being some conspiracy partner with the gunman, thugs is exactly what I'd call them. Specifically them. When I made my first comment I was also basing it on my memory of watching Bluehair's video back when it came out in July, and I didn't remember it perfectly.

"It's fuckin' kids out here" Those terrorist looking weirdos with covered faces, or the kids of the irresponsible family men and women out protesting? I seriously want to know. If your cause is just, why are you covering your face? Should the world not know that you, an identifiable person, are fighting for something that is "right"? Or are you making sure that you can get away with being a hooligan amidst the chaos? What do you fear? What are you hiding?