-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...
- Thread starter Tombs
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
A lot we don't know... a few things seem "semi-solid"... others are "early reporting" that may or may not be accurate or total BS)
Cops were called by his girlfriend that he was in her house, "he wasn't supposed to be" and he had taken her keys and would not give them back.
Dispatch relayed this and that he had warrants out for his arrest. (we know that one of the warrants was for domestic abuse - was this against his girlfriend? Was there a restraining order? Were her keys that he stole her car keys?)
They attempt to take him into custody (was this solely for the outstanding warrants or was there also cause at the scene, either domestic abuse against the girlfriend or violating a restraining order?), tase him, that fails and he attempts to enter the car and is shot while doing so. (witness reported to the news said the cops were yelling "drop the knife" but the witness didn't see the knife. Stills from the video show what might or might not be a curved blade knife in his hands as he makes his way to the vehicle door).
Other reports (from Ben Crump no less) indicate that he was shot in front of three kids who were in the car.
No information so far whose vehicle it was nor reliable info if there were kids in the car and whose kids they were. Crump says they were his kids.
SPECULATION: So what if it was domestic abuse, violation of restraining order, he barged into her house, took her car keys and was going into her car with her (their?) kids with a knife in his hand intent on "taking" his kids with him?
Lots of questions to be answered, but if it was something like that, halting a kidnapping by a knife-wielding accused domestic abuser changes the whole complexion of this shooting... even in the back.
Last edited:
As someone who has watched almost every night of the riots in every city and has seen how the crowds react to various actions, let me float something for you.
What if he simply walked away from his group, and people decided it was "get even" time for stopping them from looting the gas station?
This kind of behavior is consistently what I've seen in almost all of these riots. Very predatory pack-hunter like behavior. All it takes is one person moving faster than average towards someone else, and the whole crowd subconsciously joins in pursuit.
Which typically starts with a sucker attack from behind.
Any clue who the guy was that rendered aid to red shirt guy after he was shot? My first impression was that he and red shirt were both chasing the kid. Some have said he was just video'ing the protests/riots. Nothing even semi-reliable on him.
Edited*
Oh wait a head gunshot wound. Yeah I have no idea who did that, didn't really see them around in much other footage.
We know the cops were called on a domestic, my impression was that he was a third party.
Nonetheless, WI law requires that when a domestic is called in, someone gets hauled in, no matter what.
I’ll go back and look at the last video when I have time.
Concerning the kids stance, I believe he is not so much a supporter but sympathetic to BLM, and that stopped at property damage. In other words, he and his buddies organized to protect property. You can see this indication on one of the early clips, more of an interview type.
I will speculate that he sorted out the property damage ringleader and attempted to take him out.
hoosierdaddy1976
I Can't Believe it's not Shooter
I am definitely not the legal eagle either, bit the hunting exception is for those under 16, according to the link Tombs put up. So, over the age of 15 and bring sbs/sbr seems to be legal imo.
KittySlayer
Grandmaster
So now that a few “peaceful” protesters have lost their lives playing stupid games will their mommies and daddies finally step in and make them stay in the basement instead of going out to play with the other kids?
Speculation can also be made that the kid was attempting to disengage himself from the situation and the red shirt “ringleader” pursued him. The video appears to show that the red shirt guy was chasing after the kid and trying to incite the mob into harming the individual.
Maybe because it's not your job to pursue a dangerous person? It's your job to back off. Now if he did say he was getting a gun and he was already attacking you then you might have an argument. But I agree I wouldn't want to have to prove that.
The problem is - you don't know what weapon he has or is going to go get. Sure, if you 100% KNOW it is a knife, you might just back off and keep your gun aimed and ready, but what if he said/implied he had a 'knife' but what he grabs is a pistol...? Criminals, especially ones acting violently and irrationally, sometimes don't tell the truth....
I had a [STRIKE]discussion[/STRIKE] argument with my son about this. His point was that the kid crossed state lines with an AR intentionally entering into a riot zone. That, he was obviously there to fight and should therefore be charged with murder. My position is that it was foolish to take it upon himself to go there and try to be the peace keeper. It's not as obvious that he was there to pick a fight as there are other alternative reasons. For example, he wanted to be there to represent the other side of it, and since there would be violence, bring his AR along for protection. I think that's foolish, because he intentionally put himself into a position where it was likely he'd have to use it. If you're on the BLM side and armed, you're not likely to need to use it. If you're on the opposite side, there is no doubt. They're coming for you. I've avoided the downtown area in Louisville altogether for that reason. I'd be armed anyway, and I know the odds are much higher that I'd need to defend myself.
But as you say, he has a right to be there to protest as much as anyone else, AND to bring his AR with him, just like the protesters on the BLM side do. The people trying to kill him didn't have to try to kill him. They had a choice in the transaction as well. I'd say they even more responsibility for their foolishness because they initiated the violence. So I see it as a clash of fools, which often ends with some dead fools and some fools still standing afterwards, in this case, the more justified fool.
That said, the violence those rioters would have caused otherwise didn't happen because of his actions. They tried to kill him, so there is no doubt that killing people was on the table. If he weren't there, what violence would they have brought upon someone who couldn't defend themselves.
I've had a similar discussion with people.
If that kid is automatically a murderer for entering the riot zone, then by extension every person who enters an after-curfew protest area loses the right of self defense. Get raped and had to stab your attacker? Too bad, shouldn't have been there and you just have to take it.
Exactly. The kid had as much right to be there as any of the BLM folks WHO BROUGHT THEIR FIREARMS too. We can talk about the foolishness of putting yourself in that position. But anywhere you have a right to be, notwithstanding the wisdom or foolishness of being there, you also have a right to be armed and protect yourself. I'm not sure my son understood that yet. I think the thinks of himself as fairly libertarian, and so he kinda shares the elements of distrust of police; not in a "sovereign citizen" sort of way. But he does seem eager to focus on the bad elements in policing more than the good. But because of his libertarian streak, I think I should introduce him to the principle of Initiation of Force standard. Perhaps that it's a "libertarian" principle, his side-taking might open him to that principle, which I think is generally good.
