Careful when you say unarmed. There is a still photo that shows the murderer may have been reaching for a pistol in the deceased vest, at which time he was bitch slapped.
Of note, the deceased did not go for that weapon. Instead he retreated. He was shot when attempting to bear spray the aggressor as he drew a concealed handgun. The slap nor the bear spray were (edit: were NOT) deadly force - this is not am authorized use of deadly force, especially since the murderer was a party to/instigator in the altercation.
Give the killer any benefit of the doubt? I'm not - at all. He had no right to assault the man or reach for the gun (before he shot him). If anything, it shows the restraint of the deceased, and the agression of the killer.
I was stating the post said he shot an unarmed man, why may not be the case. It makes it worse for the killer, because he engaged a man he knew to be armed. Instead of drawing himself, the man retreated at which time he was shot.
I can't see the other guys comment, so I don't know what it said.
I absolutely will try to investigate the truth, including all angles, however if there's any benefit of the doubt, we should start by applying it equally to both sides. For example:
Benefit of the doubt for Lee: In one image, you see a slap. In the next you see bear-spray being deployed. Why the slap? Why was bear-spray used? Based on what I've seen so far, the reason was because Matt was reaching for something on Lee, and the slap & bear-spray were defensive.
Benefit of the doubt for Matt: Matt shot, but did he maybe have a reason to shoot? We see Lee had just slapped matt. We see Lee had just deployed pepper spray. Lee may have had a gun in his possession?
There are a few problems with this: Lee was retreating. Matt appears to have provoked the incident. Matt pulled his gun before pepper spray was deployed. Matt shot lee, when Lee only had pepper spray in his hands, didn't brandish, and his hands were nowhere near a gun. Even if Lee had a gun in his possession, it's generally legal and not a justifiable reason to shoot someone.
I'm having a really hard time seeing any angle where Matt is justified, even giving him as many reasonable "benefit of the doubts" as I can. That said, we have a justice system, a process, and juries. I'm okay with "Innocent until proven guilty," but I'm not blind or stupid.
Lee unfortunately is dead, and will never be able to make his case, say goodbye to his family, or do anything for that matter.
Actually the left would say "brave, selfless, anti-fascist counterprotestor tries to disarm white supremacist."
I think he was trying to take his weapon. Honestly, if you attack me and try to take my weapon, you would be shot. Based on what I see in the news, I fear my life is in danger at all times from fascist mobs - there will be no bear spray.
If you remember the altercation before they were complaining trying to steal his weapons. The stupid thing about these idiots rioting against the police is that they think they have full powers to "confiscate" the arms of whoever they feel like meanwhile they commonly carry concealed weapons themselves.
In the cases between Matthew Dolloff and Michael Reinoehl these are suspicious similarities.
Both look like hits. Both just want into the path of someone with bear spray and then shoot them. Both have strange links to the press. Both have links to antifa.
"The slap nor the bear spray were deadly force - this is not am authorized use of deadly force"
WRONG.
Deadly force is authorized when attacked. Stop making up rules. If you are attacked, you have a God-given right to defend yourself, including using deadly force.
The guy with the gun was the aggressor. The guy who used mace was using self-defense. Thus the guy who shot him committed murder. That is the difference. ACTIONS are the difference between a crime and defense.
STOP making up rules about when you can or cannot use a gun. You use whatever you have when someone attacks you to defend your life. I don't care if someone sprays water at you or comes at you with bare fists, if they are attacking and you are armed, you have a right to defend yourself. Period.
Don't make up rules here. The actions of the killer are what makes him a murderer, not what weapons were employed by who. You need to see the danger in your argument. If the attacker had the mace and the minister had the gun, and it was the attacker who got shot, do you see the difference? Would you be saying "that minister shouldn't have shot the poor Antifa guy because he just had mace"?
NO. Because then you could clearly see the underlying problem. The Antifa guy was the attacker, no matter if one had a banana and one had an orange. The criminal is the attacker. The crime is the attack. Using a gun and a death resulting only complicate the crime and make it murder.
I edited to to say the slap and bear spray was NOT deadly force (fast fingers on mobile) and therefore deadly force was not authorized. That was my mistake, it was unitentional.
Check you local laws though. Legally, force has to reciprocal - but escalation and justification for use of force varies from state to state. If you are punched by one person, you have a right to punch back - not shoot them. If attacked by 2, 3, 4? Probably okay to shoot. It depends.
If roles were reversed and killer had spray and deceased had gun and shot him? Probably not justified unless he had a justifiable fear for his life - that is a jury to decide at that point. I'm with you though, in this climate, I can make ar argument of a legitamate fear for my life. I would rather be judged by 12 than carries by 6.
Personally I think the shooter was in the wrong, and the deceased did nothing wrong. I won't dare say he shouldn't be there because he had every right to protest to pray for this nation. May the ayrian brotherhood have no mercy on his asshole in prison.
The real fault here lies with the killer, and the cops that reportedly saw the escalation and did nothing.
Maybe your wording confused me a bit, but I have been trying to correct several people when it comes to this particular incident, because some people are focusing on the "it was just mace" idea, and that is a deadly, deadly trap to fall into. If you compare to the Kyle Rittenhouse situation, the Left can (and did) make the argument that nobody shot at him (which there is still question about) thus he had no right to use deadly force against skateboard guy, or "shoot me guy", and initially against "Lefty", even though he clearly had a gun himself.
Specific local laws in some places exist because people made dangerous arguments such as "the attacker was unarmed so you should not be able to use a gun on him", regardless if the attacker was twice his size and could have pummeled him to death, or could have thrown dirt in his eyes, stole his gun and shot him instead.
The crime is in the aggression. I am trying to warn people to steer away from arguing that the minister shouldn't have been shot because "it's against the rules in some despot Democrat run city to use a gun unless someone shoots at you first". That will be used against you in an argument, and perhaps to change the laws in your own local place eventually.
No, the argument is, and always is, and always will be no matter who has what politics, who is armed with what, and whatever the outcome, that the aggressor is the criminal and the person they attack or initiate violence with is the self-defender. Period. Full stop. End of.
Don't make dangerous arguments that come back and hang you later when the role is reversed.
And at the end of the day, we all have a God-given right to defend ourselves. We don't always know what someone is throwing or spraying at us or what they are capable of doing. So deadly force is always "authorized" in real life, when you are being attacked by an unknown person with unknown intentions and capabilities. ESPECIALLY when there are other unknowns around.
Even a handful of dirt can kill you, if you are blinded for a few seconds and someone takes your gun.
Spez: Also the Zimmerman case comes to mind. One guy punched him. He only used his gun once his head was being beat against the pavement. Are you supposed to wait until your head is being beat against the pavement? Or is there a certain amount of punches before you can use your gun? Do you see how utterly ridiculous it is to make the argument that "depending on your local laws" is?
Self-defense is not about local laws. It is about acting within seconds, untrained because normal people are not trained, in a way to protect yourself, and there is no jury on the Earth who can somehow tell whether or not you felt "in mortal danger".
The only common denominator that can be proven (or not disproved) is that someone attacked you. After that, nothing can by any natural law say you cannot use a gun, a rock, mace, or a banana in your attempt to defend yourself.
Hey, I'm with you. It was a typo. I initially said the "slap and spray WERE deadly force...and there the shooter was not justified" (in this instance, because he and his buddies were the agressors). I meant to say they weren't deadly force.
But you are correct, it all depends on the circumstance and local laws. If a dude is 3x my size and goes to attack me, I have a force multiplier in my waistband. Where I am, I have to have a reasonable fear for my (or others) life.
It is not about the weapon, it is about the reasonable fear for your life.
Yes, we are saying the same thing. Again, my mistake. Thanks for spelling out in your first line the primer for the disagreement - I was wondering why people thought I was sympathizing with the shooter.
Same reason some apparently thought I was and downvoted. They don't read enough into a comment to form a fully informed opinion. I didn't even downvote you myself. But then I usually only downvote right before hitting the deport button, so it's rare anyways. If I disagree with someone, I prefer to argue it out. Clash ideas and see what the best thing is that rises out of the clash.
Holy shit, I hope you NEVER get your hands on a firearm. I hope I am misinterpreting you, but a simple attack of any sort is not justification for deadly force.
When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.
Considering I own many and was in two branches in the military, I guess it's too late for your hopes.
The basic concept of self-defense is pretty easy to explain, but you are too blinded by your desire to be political, so you aren't seeing the bigger picture here at all.
If I am armed and you attack me, I will shoot you. I don't care what weapon you use. Me personally? I will give you a verbal warning. But after that, you're on your own.
And we have had MORE THAN ENOUGH examples of that posted here showing a patriot who is armed being assaulted who has to at least brandish a firearm. And the Zimmerman case alone should tell you that you are wrong.
If I am armed, I am not going to let any punk even trip me in such a situation and give them the opportunity to disarm me and shoot me with my own weapon.
If you cannot understand anything I am saying to you, then you are an idiot, and frankly, it is you that I worry about handling a firearm. But unlike you, I am not here to tell everyone to take away your rights to a firearm.
They're trying to gaslight as if nothing happened, meanwhile they're getting brigaded on all of their social media posts. I expect subpoenas for all involved.
Fun fact, nobody can find the license for this "private security" guy. One can only hope that both they and the murderer face a wrongful death lawsuit after the murder conviction.
10 years ago I would have told you I was socially liberal. Today I would tell you I pray to Jesus every day, asking for justice for Kyle Rittenhouse. And I am against abortion PERIOD
Careful when you say unarmed. There is a still photo that shows the murderer may have been reaching for a pistol in the deceased vest, at which time he was bitch slapped.
Of note, the deceased did not go for that weapon. Instead he retreated. He was shot when attempting to bear spray the aggressor as he drew a concealed handgun. The slap nor the bear spray were (edit: were NOT) deadly force - this is not am authorized use of deadly force, especially since the murderer was a party to/instigator in the altercation.
Don't forget that Lee (bear-spray guy) was retreating at the time Matt shot Lee.
Correct.
Give the killer any benefit of the doubt? I'm not - at all. He had no right to assault the man or reach for the gun (before he shot him). If anything, it shows the restraint of the deceased, and the agression of the killer.
I was stating the post said he shot an unarmed man, why may not be the case. It makes it worse for the killer, because he engaged a man he knew to be armed. Instead of drawing himself, the man retreated at which time he was shot.
I can't see the other guys comment, so I don't know what it said.
I absolutely will try to investigate the truth, including all angles, however if there's any benefit of the doubt, we should start by applying it equally to both sides. For example:
I'm having a really hard time seeing any angle where Matt is justified, even giving him as many reasonable "benefit of the doubts" as I can. That said, we have a justice system, a process, and juries. I'm okay with "Innocent until proven guilty," but I'm not blind or stupid.
Lee unfortunately is dead, and will never be able to make his case, say goodbye to his family, or do anything for that matter.
Actually the left would say "brave, selfless, anti-fascist counterprotestor tries to disarm white supremacist."
I think he was trying to take his weapon. Honestly, if you attack me and try to take my weapon, you would be shot. Based on what I see in the news, I fear my life is in danger at all times from fascist mobs - there will be no bear spray.
If you remember the altercation before they were complaining trying to steal his weapons. The stupid thing about these idiots rioting against the police is that they think they have full powers to "confiscate" the arms of whoever they feel like meanwhile they commonly carry concealed weapons themselves.
In the cases between Matthew Dolloff and Michael Reinoehl these are suspicious similarities.
Both look like hits. Both just want into the path of someone with bear spray and then shoot them. Both have strange links to the press. Both have links to antifa.
Antifa having links to the leftist press is not surprising.
"The slap nor the bear spray were deadly force - this is not am authorized use of deadly force"
WRONG.
Deadly force is authorized when attacked. Stop making up rules. If you are attacked, you have a God-given right to defend yourself, including using deadly force.
The guy with the gun was the aggressor. The guy who used mace was using self-defense. Thus the guy who shot him committed murder. That is the difference. ACTIONS are the difference between a crime and defense.
STOP making up rules about when you can or cannot use a gun. You use whatever you have when someone attacks you to defend your life. I don't care if someone sprays water at you or comes at you with bare fists, if they are attacking and you are armed, you have a right to defend yourself. Period.
Don't make up rules here. The actions of the killer are what makes him a murderer, not what weapons were employed by who. You need to see the danger in your argument. If the attacker had the mace and the minister had the gun, and it was the attacker who got shot, do you see the difference? Would you be saying "that minister shouldn't have shot the poor Antifa guy because he just had mace"?
NO. Because then you could clearly see the underlying problem. The Antifa guy was the attacker, no matter if one had a banana and one had an orange. The criminal is the attacker. The crime is the attack. Using a gun and a death resulting only complicate the crime and make it murder.
I edited to to say the slap and bear spray was NOT deadly force (fast fingers on mobile) and therefore deadly force was not authorized. That was my mistake, it was unitentional.
Check you local laws though. Legally, force has to reciprocal - but escalation and justification for use of force varies from state to state. If you are punched by one person, you have a right to punch back - not shoot them. If attacked by 2, 3, 4? Probably okay to shoot. It depends.
If roles were reversed and killer had spray and deceased had gun and shot him? Probably not justified unless he had a justifiable fear for his life - that is a jury to decide at that point. I'm with you though, in this climate, I can make ar argument of a legitamate fear for my life. I would rather be judged by 12 than carries by 6.
Personally I think the shooter was in the wrong, and the deceased did nothing wrong. I won't dare say he shouldn't be there because he had every right to protest to pray for this nation. May the ayrian brotherhood have no mercy on his asshole in prison.
The real fault here lies with the killer, and the cops that reportedly saw the escalation and did nothing.
Sorry about the confusion in my post
Maybe your wording confused me a bit, but I have been trying to correct several people when it comes to this particular incident, because some people are focusing on the "it was just mace" idea, and that is a deadly, deadly trap to fall into. If you compare to the Kyle Rittenhouse situation, the Left can (and did) make the argument that nobody shot at him (which there is still question about) thus he had no right to use deadly force against skateboard guy, or "shoot me guy", and initially against "Lefty", even though he clearly had a gun himself.
Specific local laws in some places exist because people made dangerous arguments such as "the attacker was unarmed so you should not be able to use a gun on him", regardless if the attacker was twice his size and could have pummeled him to death, or could have thrown dirt in his eyes, stole his gun and shot him instead.
The crime is in the aggression. I am trying to warn people to steer away from arguing that the minister shouldn't have been shot because "it's against the rules in some despot Democrat run city to use a gun unless someone shoots at you first". That will be used against you in an argument, and perhaps to change the laws in your own local place eventually.
No, the argument is, and always is, and always will be no matter who has what politics, who is armed with what, and whatever the outcome, that the aggressor is the criminal and the person they attack or initiate violence with is the self-defender. Period. Full stop. End of.
Don't make dangerous arguments that come back and hang you later when the role is reversed.
And at the end of the day, we all have a God-given right to defend ourselves. We don't always know what someone is throwing or spraying at us or what they are capable of doing. So deadly force is always "authorized" in real life, when you are being attacked by an unknown person with unknown intentions and capabilities. ESPECIALLY when there are other unknowns around.
Even a handful of dirt can kill you, if you are blinded for a few seconds and someone takes your gun.
Spez: Also the Zimmerman case comes to mind. One guy punched him. He only used his gun once his head was being beat against the pavement. Are you supposed to wait until your head is being beat against the pavement? Or is there a certain amount of punches before you can use your gun? Do you see how utterly ridiculous it is to make the argument that "depending on your local laws" is?
Self-defense is not about local laws. It is about acting within seconds, untrained because normal people are not trained, in a way to protect yourself, and there is no jury on the Earth who can somehow tell whether or not you felt "in mortal danger".
The only common denominator that can be proven (or not disproved) is that someone attacked you. After that, nothing can by any natural law say you cannot use a gun, a rock, mace, or a banana in your attempt to defend yourself.
Hey, I'm with you. It was a typo. I initially said the "slap and spray WERE deadly force...and there the shooter was not justified" (in this instance, because he and his buddies were the agressors). I meant to say they weren't deadly force.
But you are correct, it all depends on the circumstance and local laws. If a dude is 3x my size and goes to attack me, I have a force multiplier in my waistband. Where I am, I have to have a reasonable fear for my (or others) life. It is not about the weapon, it is about the reasonable fear for your life.
So we were saying the exact same thing. That's a shitty typo, but it happens. You are correct. They were the aggressors.
Yes, we are saying the same thing. Again, my mistake. Thanks for spelling out in your first line the primer for the disagreement - I was wondering why people thought I was sympathizing with the shooter.
Same reason some apparently thought I was and downvoted. They don't read enough into a comment to form a fully informed opinion. I didn't even downvote you myself. But then I usually only downvote right before hitting the deport button, so it's rare anyways. If I disagree with someone, I prefer to argue it out. Clash ideas and see what the best thing is that rises out of the clash.
Holy shit, I hope you NEVER get your hands on a firearm. I hope I am misinterpreting you, but a simple attack of any sort is not justification for deadly force.
You really should do some basic research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
Considering I own many and was in two branches in the military, I guess it's too late for your hopes.
The basic concept of self-defense is pretty easy to explain, but you are too blinded by your desire to be political, so you aren't seeing the bigger picture here at all.
If I am armed and you attack me, I will shoot you. I don't care what weapon you use. Me personally? I will give you a verbal warning. But after that, you're on your own.
And we have had MORE THAN ENOUGH examples of that posted here showing a patriot who is armed being assaulted who has to at least brandish a firearm. And the Zimmerman case alone should tell you that you are wrong.
If I am armed, I am not going to let any punk even trip me in such a situation and give them the opportunity to disarm me and shoot me with my own weapon.
If you cannot understand anything I am saying to you, then you are an idiot, and frankly, it is you that I worry about handling a firearm. But unlike you, I am not here to tell everyone to take away your rights to a firearm.
They're trying to gaslight as if nothing happened, meanwhile they're getting brigaded on all of their social media posts. I expect subpoenas for all involved.
Good. Please keep up the pressure and I'll do my part as well.
I agree, but just in terms of public pressure. Being a local station they're a little more accountable to the people and their jurisdiction.
Fun fact, nobody can find the license for this "private security" guy. One can only hope that both they and the murderer face a wrongful death lawsuit after the murder conviction.
10 years ago I would have told you I was socially liberal. Today I would tell you I pray to Jesus every day, asking for justice for Kyle Rittenhouse. And I am against abortion PERIOD
I'm not on the side that'll be doing the digging.
FREE KYLE