• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

Meadmaker said:
That is precisely what I am saying. His hands are visible until about one second before the flames are seen. There's no gun.

It seems probable that, as he walked backwards, he had probably placed his hand on his gun. I don't know where he had been carrying it. There's some sort of pocket in his vest. Maybe that's where the gun was.

Yes, he pulled the gun in reaction to the flame.
Click to expand...

What does it matter?
 
Meadmaker said:
That is precisely what I am saying. His hands are visible until about one second before the flames are seen. There's no gun.

It seems probable that, as he walked backwards, he had probably placed his hand on his gun. I don't know where he had been carrying it. There's some sort of pocket in his vest. Maybe that's where the gun was.

Yes, he pulled the gun in reaction to the flame.
Click to expand...

uke2se said:
What does it matter?
Click to expand...

It matters because quadraginta asked the following question.

quadraginta said:
I have seen claims that he lit up before the Nazi actually fired the gun at people, none that he did so before the Nazi started waving the gun around.

Where is your evidence for that?
Click to expand...

Since he asked, I'm guessing quad wanted an answer. Meadmaker was providing that answer.
 
phiwum said:
It matters because quadraginta asked the following question.



Since he asked, I'm guessing quad wanted an answer. Meadmaker was providing that answer.
Click to expand...

But what does it matter? What does the order of events matter? Why does it matter if a black man held an aerosol can and lit the spray on fire?
 
uke2se said:
But what does it matter? What does the order of events matter? Why does it matter if a black man held an aerosol can and lit the spray on fire?
Click to expand...

First, you could ask quadraginta.

Second, the order matters if either the gun-wielder or the flamer wants to argue that his actions were justified by fears caused by the other's action[1]. That argument could be plausible for only one of the two, and if the gun was not visible before the fire, then the guy spraying fire wasn't reacting to the gun.

Of course, some may suggest the guy spraying fire was harmless, a mere carnival trick to entertain the crowd perhaps, but for those who regard his actions as reasonably threatening, the question of why he did it might matter.

[1] ETA: To be clear, the order of events matters for this line of argument, but it isn't the only thing that matters. A reaction to a threat might be so disproportionate that the argument nonetheless fails.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
First, you could ask quadraginta.

Second, the order matters if either the gun-wielder or the flamer wants to argue that his actions were justified by fears caused by the other's action[1]. That argument could be plausible for only one of the two, and if the gun was not visible before the fire, then the guy spraying fire wasn't reacting to the gun.

Of course, some may suggest the guy spraying fire was harmless, a mere carnival trick to entertain the crowd perhaps, but for those who regard his actions as reasonably threatening, the question of why he did it might matter.

[1] ETA: To be clear, the order of events matters for this line of argument, but it isn't the only thing that matters. A reaction to a threat might be so disproportionate that the argument nonetheless fails.
Click to expand...

This is why I think it doesn't matter.
 
phiwum said:
First, you could ask quadraginta.

Second, the order matters if either the gun-wielder or the flamer wants to argue that his actions were justified by fears caused by the other's action[1]. That argument could be plausible for only one of the two, and if the gun was not visible before the fire, then the guy spraying fire wasn't reacting to the gun.

Of course, some may suggest the guy spraying fire was harmless, a mere carnival trick to entertain the crowd perhaps, but for those who regard his actions as reasonably threatening, the question of why he did it might matter.

[1] ETA: To be clear, the order of events matters for this line of argument, but it isn't the only thing that matters. A reaction to a threat might be so disproportionate that the argument nonetheless fails.
Click to expand...


Do we even have any way of knowing that it was that particular person with a gun who was a cause of concern for the guy with the paint can some Nazi had thrown at him?

He could have felt threatened by anyone in that bunch. Or all of them.
 
quadraginta said:
Do we even have any way of knowing that it was that particular person with a gun who was a cause of concern for the guy with the paint can some Nazi had thrown at him?

He could have felt threatened by anyone in that bunch. Or all of them.
Click to expand...

Such as by the one who threw the can at him in the first place.
 
quadraginta said:
Do we even have any way of knowing that it was that particular person with a gun who was a cause of concern for the guy with the paint can some Nazi had thrown at him?

He could have felt threatened by anyone in that bunch. Or all of them.
Click to expand...

I certainly make no claims about why the flamer did what he did, nor why the gun was pulled. I haven't even looked at the videos.

On the other hand, you seemed to suggest that the reason the flamer lit the aerosol was because he saw a gun pointed at him.

quadraginta said:
How much ESP do you need to see someone pointing a gun at you?
Click to expand...

Far as I can tell, that's how the debate about the timing of the draw began.
 
quadraginta said:
Do we even have any way of knowing that it was that particular person with a gun who was a cause of concern for the guy with the paint can some Nazi had thrown at him?

He could have felt threatened by anyone in that bunch. Or all of them.
Click to expand...

Or none of them.

On the video, he doesn't appear to be threatened in any way until he ignites the paint. At that point, we still can't see him, but we can see Mr. Wizard point a gun at him.

We also don't have any video of Mr. Long acquiring the spray paint can, or lighter, so we don't know when that happened or who was involved.

I have been looking for video that shows the beginning of the fight that led to the parking garage melee in which Deandre Harris and a Nazi each ended up on the ground being beaten with clubs, but I haven't found any video. In the best video I have seen, it begins with Mr. Long and a Nazi each apparently trying to get control of the Nazi's flag. I haven't seen how that scuffle began.
 
Meadmaker said:
I have been looking for video that shows the beginning of the fight that led to the parking garage melee in which Deandre Harris and a Nazi each ended up on the ground being beaten with clubs, but I haven't found any video. In the best video I have seen, it begins with Mr. Long and a Nazi each apparently trying to get control of the Nazi's flag. I haven't seen how that scuffle began.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter?
 
uke2se said:
This is a case where one person is on the ground being beaten by clubs. There's nothing that can justify that.
Click to expand...
If a nazi/kkk/fascist person were on the ground being beaten by clubs, would that be justified?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom