Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[johnny karate]

It kind of does. If you have a gun out before your life is imminently threatened, you are pretty much the bad guy that others are defending themselves from, or trying to disarm.

Is it your position that anyone who has a gun out can rightfully be immediately charged and subdued in self-defense?

 

[Thermal]

Is it your position that anyone who has a gun out can rightfully be immediately charged and subdued in self-defense?

No, my position is what I said it was. Please don't take it for a walk.

 

[johnny karate]

No, my position is what I said it was. Please don't take it for a walk.

If Reinoehl merely having his gun out does not merit swift defensive action from Danielson, what else are you seeing in that video that does?

 

[Thermal]

If Reinoehl merely having his gun out does not merit swift defensive action from Danielson, what else are you seeing in that video that does?

The lack of an imminent grave threat to Reinoehl that warranted the draw, before Danielson charged.

Again, not sure what to make of this. I think the un-videoed run-up would fill in the gaps.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Since when is a little open carry so bad?

 

[Thermal]

Since when is a little open carry so bad?

It always always always is to non-security/LEO/military. It means you have plans and preparation to kill someone if given the chance.

 

[johnny karate]

The lack of an imminent grave threat to Reinoehl that warranted the draw, before Danielson charged.

Again, not sure what to make of this. I think the un-videoed run-up would fill in the gaps.

Okay, but Danielson did move towards Reinoehl as Reinoehl was backing away from him, and Danielson did charge him.

You claimed Danielson was the “defender”.

You’ve also claimed that the mere act of someone else having a gun out does not itself merit self-defense.

So what specifically was Reinoehl doing that warranted defensive action from Danielson?

 

[Thermal]

Okay, but Danielson did move towards Reinoehl as Reinoehl was backing away from him, and Danielson did charge him.

You claimed Danielson was the “defender”.

You’ve also claimed that the mere act of someone else having a gun out does not itself merit self-defense.
So what specifically was Reinoehl doing that warranted defensive action from Danielson?

Did not neither. That's that walk you are taking.

Handgun drawn is either brandishing, or firing in self defense. There is no option three. Reinohl drew first, absent any imminent threat. Done and done, bad-guy wise. The charge against a brandisher is warranted as Danielson defending, absent other evidence.

But yet again, I think there is more we don't see, so I have to hold back. Both parties being dead doesn't help clear things up.

 

[johnny karate]

Did not neither. That's that walk you are taking.

Handgun drawn is either brandishing, or firing in self defense. There is no option three. Reinohl drew first, absent any imminent threat. Done and done, bad-guy wise. The charge against a brandisher is warranted as Danielson defending, absent other evidence.

But yet again, I think there is more we don't see, so I have to hold back. Both parties being dead doesn't help clear things up.

But when I asked you if it was your position that anyone who has a gun out can rightfully be immediately charged and subdued in self-defense, you responded that it wasn’t.

You’re contradicting yourself.

If you disagree, please explain the difference.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But when I asked you if it was your position that anyone who has a gun out can rightfully be immediately charged and subdued in self-defense, you responded that it wasn’t.

You’re contradicting yourself.

If you disagree, please explain the difference.

I don't think he's contradicting himself. I think you lack imagination and nuance.

So... ferinstance, a person might have a gun visible, but not be doing anything threatening with it, in which case charging them and attacking wouldn't be self-defense. Alternatively, a person might have a gun out pointing it at other folks and yelling obscenities' at them and claiming he's gonna shoot their kids, in which case charging them and attacking them would probably be considered reasonable self-defense.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't think he's contradicting himself. I think you lack imagination and nuance.

So... ferinstance, a person might have a gun visible, but not be doing anything threatening with it, in which case charging them and attacking wouldn't be self-defense. Alternatively, a person might have a gun out pointing it at other folks and yelling obscenities' at them and claiming he's gonna shoot their kids, in which case charging them and attacking them would probably be considered reasonable self-defense.

What do you specifically see Reinoehl doing in that video that is threatening beyond the act of merely having his gun out?

 

[Thermal]

But when I asked you if it was your position that anyone who has a gun out can rightfully be immediately charged and subdued in self-defense, you responded that it wasn’t.

You’re contradicting yourself.

If you disagree, please explain the difference.

Like the Cat said, having a gun open carried is one thing. Drawing it absent an imminent threat on the street is another.

This walk you are taking is pretty transparent, dude. I've said it a few times now that you are doing so. Please stop.

 

[Thermal]

What do you specifically see Reinoehl doing in that video that is threatening beyond the act of merely having his gun out?

Jesus Christ, dude

 

[thaiboxerken]

If one guy has a gun out and drawn before any other movement, what is he defending himself from? Been watching Minority Report, have you?

In your world, if a person has a gun pointed and another runs to attack him, the person with the gun can't be acting in self-defense?

 

[johnny karate]

Like the Cat said, having a gun open carried is one thing. Drawing it absent an imminent threat on the street is another.

This walk you are taking is pretty transparent, dude. I've said it a few times now that you are doing so. Please stop.

So someone else drawing a gun “absent an imminent threat” warrants immediately charging them as a self-defense measure?

Also, how did you determine that Reinoehl did not face an imminent threat from Danielson?

 

[Thermal]

In your world, if a person has a gun pointed and another runs to attack him, the person with the gun can't be acting in self-defense?

So someone else drawing a gun “absent an imminent threat” warrants immediately charging them as a self-defense measure?

Jesus Mary and Joseph I can't believe we are having this discussion seriously.

Also, how did you determine that Reinoehl did not face an imminent threat from Danielson?

OK, at this point you are just pretending to be stupid. You couldn't possibly be for real. I've said repeatedly that I made no such determination, and think the words heard in the video indicate a run-up that would clear things up.

The problem with being a tribal parrot is that you don't hear how ridiculous what you are saying is. Reinoehl drew a gun absent a visible threat. He is the aggressor, lacking any other evidence. If this were some Trumpanzee drawing first, pretty sure you would have no confusion about what an aggressor is.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Jesus Mary and Joseph I can't believe we are having this discussion seriously.



OK, at this point you are just pretending to be stupid. You couldn't possibly be for real. I've said repeatedly that I made no such determination, and think the words heard in the video indicate a run-up that would clear things up.

The problem with being a tribal parrot is that you don't hear how ridiculous what you are saying is. Reinoehl drew a gun absent a visible threat. He is the aggressor, lacking any other evidence. If this were some Trumpanzee drawing first, pretty sure you would have no confusion about what an aggressor is.

Nonsense. You are full of yourself. You have no idea if Reinoehl saw a visible threat or not. It certainly sounded like he was threated seconds before the Nazi started running at him.

 

[Ziggurat]

So someone else drawing a gun “absent an imminent threat” warrants immediately charging them as a self-defense measure?

I don't know how you get that from what he said. It's possible for both people in a confrontation to be in the wrong.

 

[Thermal]

Nonsense. You are full of yourself. You have no idea if Reinoehl saw a visible threat or not. It certainly sounded like he was threated seconds before the Nazi started running at him.

Are you hearing something...that others don't hear?

There is a shout about finding the guy that maced him. That makes more sense coming from Reinoehl, as he had no mace and Danielson did (even assuming the shouts were from the involved parties and not some other protestors).

As I keep saying, and you and jk keep pretending I am not saying, I can't tell. The vid alone seems to show Rein the aggressor, but I'm pretty sure there was run-up and peripheral action that could change things.

 

[johnny karate]

OK, at this point you are just pretending to be stupid. You couldn't possibly be for real. I've said repeatedly that I made no such determination, and think the words heard in the video indicate a run-up that would clear things up.

Here’s you pretty declaratively claiming the Danielson acted in self-defense:

Reinoehl clearly has a gun drawn before Danielson approaches him, but you can hear 'we got him' and 'he maced me', apparently referring to an earlier or at least offscreen incident. Danielson runs up and sprays bear spray, and immediately the can is hit. Unless Reinoehl was a wild west quick draw marksman, that gun was out and ready to fire before Danielson was any kind of threat. That makes Reinoehl the brandisher and Danielson the defender.

Since you seem to be walking this claim back now, would like to amend it or retract it altogether?