Shooting in Portland

[yaxomoxay]

If that is the case, it is indeed upsetting. Would be nice if this sort of instant judgement and passion was afforded to unarmed black people shot by cops in plain view of the cameras instead of "let's all be calm wait for all the evidence".

as I said, things might change, but the video is pretty damning to be honest. However it is possible that the victim had a weapon which might change things; it doesn’t appear so, but it’s possible.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Here’s the video (I didn’t listen the comments, no idea what the owner of the channel says):

 

[SuperMatt]

If that is the case, it is indeed upsetting. Would be nice if this sort of instant judgement and passion was afforded to unarmed black people shot by cops in plain view of the cameras instead of "let's all be calm wait for all the evidence".

Yep, we have to wait for all the facts when a black person is killed by the police. As for Trump supporters killing "rioters" in the street - case closed; he's innocent due to self-defense. As for a Trump supporter getting shot - case closed: he was murdered.

How about - if you want to wait for all the facts when police shoot people, you also wait for all the facts in other shootings too? Seems fair to me.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Yep, we have to wait for all the facts when a black person is killed by the police. As for Trump supporters killing "rioters" in the street - case closed; he's innocent due to self-defense. As for a Trump supporter getting shot - case closed: he was murdered.

How about - if you want to wait for all the facts when police shoot people, you also wait for all the facts in other shootings too? Seems fair to me.

1) No one is calling it a closed case. I expect more info to come up.
2) Shooter intercepts victim who is walking, turns around in front of the victim, shoots twice in the chest, shooter walks away. I am not Abby Sciuto, but I'd say the evidence strongly leans towards the shooter's fault.

 

[SuperMatt]

1) No one is calling it a closed case. I expect more info to come up.
2) Shooter intercepts victim who is walking, turns around in front of the victim, shoots twice in the chest, shooter walks away. I am not Abby Sciuto, but I'd say the evidence strongly leans towards the shooter's fault.

Maybe he was reaching for a knife. Isn’t that the excuse for shooting Blake 7 times? Maybe he was acting squirrelly - wasn’t that the excuse for killing George Floyd? Maybe he was waving his hands around - that’s why they killed Elijah McClain. Maybe he once dated a drug dealer - that’s the excuse for killing Breonna Taylor.

Wait for the facts or don’t... that’s up to you. People came to conclusions very quickly about the police killings, but many didn’t like that. Some of those same people came to conclusions quickly about other shootings though.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Maybe he was reaching for a knife. Isn’t that the excuse for shooting Blake 7 times? Maybe he was acting squirrelly - wasn’t that the excuse for killing George Floyd? Maybe he was waving his hands around - that’s why they killed Elijah McClain. Maybe he once dated a drug dealer - that’s the excuse for killing Breonna Taylor.

yes, all of the above is correct. Maybe the individual was doing something he wasn’t supposed to. The video does not remotely suggest it (hands down, walking alone, surrounded by individuals, called out, shooter that cuts in front of him and suddenly shoots), but it’s absolutely possible that new elements will pop up. To me - and without further evidence - it looks like a bad execution. I don’t see anything that suggests any fault from the victim, even in the videos/pics of the first aid, no weapon in sight, nothing suspicious. As with any other case, I am ready to change my mind in a second.

Wait for the facts or don’t... that’s up to you. People came to conclusions very quickly about the police killings, but many didn’t like that. Some of those same people came to conclusions quickly about other shootings though.

People come to conclusions quite often. Sometimes things are a bit clearer, other times they aren’t.

 

[hulugu]

Maybe he was reaching for a knife. Isn’t that the excuse for shooting Blake 7 times? Maybe he was acting squirrelly - wasn’t that the excuse for killing George Floyd? Maybe he was waving his hands around - that’s why they killed Elijah McClain. Maybe he once dated a drug dealer - that’s the excuse for killing Breonna Taylor.

Wait for the facts or don’t... that’s up to you. People came to conclusions very quickly about the police killings, but many didn’t like that. Some of those same people came to conclusions quickly about other shootings though.

We should wait for the facts, but keep in mind what the person firing the weapon may have known. Post-hoc rationalizations do not matter—so in that case, any information not know to the person at the time is irrelevant.

And, I think this illustrates the way that police are inherently problematic in their use of force, because a regular person is immediately judged for shooting a person, while police are often allowed to infer danger.

A regular person's bar for "I feared for my life" is high, they must prove the idea. Meanwhile, police can make the claim and it's up to other people to prove they're lying. The balance of proof is reversed.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I still have a hard time understanding or even agreeing with the argument that sending police in CAUSES these riots. Now your - to be clear, yes, understood, that I agree with.

From what I've seen - people are getting tired of the unrest, the inability (intentional) of the police to do their jobs so they're going to go try to bring things back to normal. This is a massive recipe for disaster.

It takes two to tango. I don't think blaming one side for this works. That's like blaming my wife for getting mad when I am an ass to her. (An example only).

Edit: The YouTube videos I've seen of violence on the streets over the last week, it is not JUST the Trump protesters doing the provoking.

This might have changed in recent weeks but last I heard the protests in Portland have largely been confined to about 4 square blocks. Sucks for the people who have to work or live there, but the news from day 1 has been talking like the entire city has been overrun.

I honestly don’t understand the mentality of people from out of town or state getting in their vehicles to go descend on these blocks with the intention of violence.

But at this point I fully believe if a cop killing of a minority happens in any city or town in the US there are people on the right within 100 mile radius who instantly go “Hey, that’s fairly close. Grab your guns. Let’s go.” with the full intention of intimidating protesters and they make no distinction between peaceful protesters, violent opportunists, and looters. They’re all in the crosshairs.

 

[Yoused]

Some detailed information about the suspected shooter. He sounds like a person with anger and boundary issues.

 

[hulugu]

I'm beginning to think that having a bunch of armed civilians running around was a bad idea.

 

[JayMysteri0]

I'm beginning to think that having a bunch of armed civilians running around was a bad idea.

As it was shockingly realized in another forum. One shouldn't provoke an armed person.

WHY THE is that person armed at a protest?!!!

Have people forgotten what a protest is?

 

[lizkat]

Truly a shame. People need to cool down.

Man shot dead in Portland during clashes between Trump supporters, BLM

A man was shot dead in Portland on Saturday night as ugly scenes unfolded amid clashes between Trump supporters and BLM. The Facebook page behind the Trump caravan encouraged gun carrying.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It is a shame and violence is not the way forward... so when it breaks out the police need to address it and follow the law to restablish public safety no matter what was going on at the time. But that doesn't negate the right of people peacefully to assemble and doesn't automatically invalidate the assertions of people who were exercising their rights lawfully.

In Portland, Man Is Fatally Shot in Another Night of Unrest

One person was killed Saturday in Portland, Ore., amid unrest that rocked the city after police said a caravan of Trump supporters took to the streets and clashed with protesters.

www.wsj.com

I much prefer the first paragraph from this:

"One person was killed Saturday in Portland, Ore., amid unrest that rocked the city after police said a caravan of Trump supporters took to the streets and clashed with violent protesters." - WSJ.

I do not think this is one sided at all.

"“This points to a larger issue that we have seen in Portland for the last three months,” Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, said Sunday morning on ABC-TV’s “This Week.” “And that is local and state officials not allowing law enforcement to do their job and really to bring this violent activity night after night to a close.”" - WSJ.

While it maybe phrasing you prefer, you are overlooking the consistent word. "Clashed" The two sides couldn't "clash" if one side hadn't set out to go to where the protestors have been. Otherwise the common story has been protestors "clashed" with police again. The only difference from this story and the recurring stories, is this "clash" somehow didn't meet Portland police's rather flexible definitions of what a riot is. That's the thing I thought interesting, since I wonder what was different in THIS incident?

Yeah... One of the things that was different is that here there was a caravan of people in vehicles essentially crashing a protest and so escalating emotions and further stirring whatever pots might already have been getting stirred up by people on foot.

Usually in urban areas there are municipal laws requiring permits for an organized protest (or... counterprotest). I'd like to know if quite aside from a Facebook invitation to go raise some hell at a BLM demonstration, anyone in an official capacity in Portland said yeah it's ok for 600 cars' worth of people to stage a counterdemo on the same date. Maybe cities around the country need to update their definitions of what is an organized demonstration or protest march (or counter-group activity) to include, specifically, caravans of vehicles carrying counter-protestors. As for carrying arms, well... seems to me crashing a protest march after being invited on social media to carry arms to it means incitement to violence had occurred before the caravan even got where it was going.

But then who knew a bunch of people from out of town would decide the Portland police didn't have a grip on some demo in the city and so would also then decide to come in and "lend a hand". /S

 

[Lostngone]

Call me a leftist but I believe police should arrest anyone with a firearm/weapon at these protests - instantly and fine them to hell. There is no reason to bring a firearm to a peaceful protest. I'm very against anyone who brings a weapon to a protest. This is why I'm screaming loudly - let the police do their jobs. But I know that's only in a perfect world. :/ Never is that simple

On principal I agree but what happens if you’re caught up in the protest like traveling home or working in your place of business or I just happen to be on the street at the wrong time. We’re talking about possibly ruining someone’s life over something that is legally allowed to have. If it is truly a peaceful and your plan/intent is not to cause problems or even brandished it what is the problem with caring it for personal protection?

 

[SuperMatt]

Biden has condemned violence by all, including the shooter in Portland. Meanwhile, Trump has not condemned the police killing of Blake, his press secretary won't speak against Kyle Rittenhouse, but he expressed condolences to the Portland victim. This President is morally bankrupt. All the violence needs to be condemned in the strongest terms. Trump is responsible for the violence, as he's been the catalyst for his entire term, and continues to pick sides. Shame on him.

 

[SuperMatt]

It is a shame and violence is not the way forward... so when it breaks out the police need to address it and follow the law to restablish public safety no matter what was going on at the time. But that doesn't negate the right of people peacefully to assemble and doesn't automatically invalidate the assertions of people who were exercising their rights lawfully.







Yeah... One of the things that was different is that here there was a caravan of people in vehicles essentially crashing a protest and so escalating emotions and further stirring whatever pots might already have been getting stirred up by people on foot.

Usually in urban areas there are municipal laws requiring permits for an organized protest (or... counterprotest). I'd like to know if quite aside from a Facebook invitation to go raise some hell at a BLM demonstration, anyone in an official capacity in Portland said yeah it's ok for 600 cars' worth of people to stage a counterdemo on the same date. Maybe cities around the country need to update their definitions of what is an organized demonstration or protest march (or counter-group activity) to include, specifically, caravans of vehicles carrying counter-protestors. As for carrying arms, well... seems to me crashing a protest march after being invited on social media to carry arms to it means incitement to violence had occurred before the caravan even got where it was going.

But then who knew a bunch of people from out of town would decide the Portland police didn't have a grip on some demo in the city and so would also then decide to come in and "lend a hand". /S

They weren't allowed to go where they went downtown. Police were trying to block roads to keep them from coming into town. Their own organizers lied and said they'd go around the town instead of through it. There is ZERO question they came to rile things up and cause trouble. They disobeyed orders to go around the downtown, they brought pepper spray, firearms, and paintball guns. They didn't desire a peaceful protest of any kind.

 

[lizkat]

Call me a leftist but I believe police should arrest anyone with a firearm/weapon at these protests - instantly and fine them to hell. There is no reason to bring a firearm to a peaceful protest. I'm very against anyone who brings a weapon to a protest. This is why I'm screaming loudly - let the police do their jobs. But I know that's only in a perfect world. :/ Never is that simple.

We've already seen it proven we can't trust these people not to kill.

Edit: I also know that some of those who bring firearms are doing so because they believe the police aren't doing their jobs - from what I've read. Fix the problem!

On principal I agree but what happens if you’re caught up in the protest like traveling home or working in your place of business or I just happen to be on the street at the wrong time. We’re talking about possibly ruining someone’s life over something that is legally allowed to have. If it is truly a peaceful and your plan/intent is not to cause problems or even brandished it what is the problem with caring it for personal protection?

The justice or lack of it in a fine for having a weapon where it's not permitted can be adjudicated, and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And it's "just money" after all.

Lives lost after some misunderstanding about what's happening in a street protest can only be mourned and the shooter(s) prosecuted, with "justice" possibly then a matter of beauty residing in the eye of the beholder.

I dunno about you but if I owned a gun for personal protection and was carrying it for that reason and also had some requirement to move through the area of Portland right now where the demos have been happening, I'd take a hard pass and let my boss (or whoever, even a municipal entity like the clerk of the court in charge of assembling jury pools) explain why I should risk my life trying to wend my way safely through a protest where police and some people committing violence are engaged with each other.

They weren't allowed to go where they went downtown. Police were trying to block roads to keep them from coming into town. Their own organizers lied and said they'd go around the town instead of through it. There is ZERO question they came to rile things up and cause trouble. They disobeyed orders to go around the downtown, they brought pepper spray, firearms, and paintball guns. They didn't desire a peaceful protest of any kind.

Yeah I didn't mean to imply that the caravan's drivers and passengers had a peaceful protest in mind. It was entirely clear they did not.

 

[hulugu]

On principal I agree but what happens if you’re caught up in the protest like traveling home or working in your place of business or I just happen to be on the street at the wrong time. We’re talking about possibly ruining someone’s life over something that is legally allowed to have. If it is truly a peaceful and your plan/intent is not to cause problems or even brandished it what is the problem with caring it for personal protection?

This is an edge-case scenario.

First, it's actually pretty hard to get "caught up" in a protest in nearly all cases. If one is in a building, and people start marching out front, stay in the building. Second, if you're carrying concealed, police aren't necessarily going to get the opportunity to inspect each person, and thus, one can just head out.

And, if you're at home and thinking of heading into an area where there's a protest, leave the firearm at home. Life is full of choices and responsibilities.

And, conceivably, an argument that one was "caught up" in a protest with a firearm would be a positive defense in a court. Yes, gun owners who happen to wander into a protest might have to defend their actions in court. This doesn't strike me as a significant problem.

I'm more worried about police intentionally "kettling" protestors, which also forces regular people into the crowd, and the attacks against legal observers, journalists, and medics. And, the proverbial gun-rights advocate has to stop being a fan of every garbage police tactic.

 

[hulugu]

And, really the Portland police are clearly disinterested in applying the law at all. A caravan of "600" vehicles, including large trucks repeatedly violated local traffic laws, and plowed into people in the street. Members of that "caravan" also repeatedly assaulted protestors.

And, the police haven't done much. That's a huge problem because it sanctifies such actions. The police should have maneuvered around, stopped the caravan and field arrested nearly everyone involved, impounding vehicles, and seizing weapons.

Will we see surveillance flights from AMO and the National Guard, reviewing video evidence of these actions? Doubtful. Because buildings and property matter more than people.

 

[BigMcGuire]

On principal I agree but what happens if you’re caught up in the protest like traveling home or working in your place of business or I just happen to be on the street at the wrong time. We’re talking about possibly ruining someone’s life over something that is legally allowed to have. If it is truly a peaceful and your plan/intent is not to cause problems or even brandished it what is the problem with caring it for personal protection?

I'm all for CCWs if they are lawfully obtained. I'm a conservative but I believe in gun control. One's past should have a bearing on their ability to obtain weapons. I know several people who have CCWs here in California and they're law abiding citizens who I feel safe to be around - they're not the type of people to bring a gun to a protest.

I'm ok with gun ownership. Not ok with bringing a visible (rifle) loaded weapon to an event where fights break out, blood is spilt, and the police are just letting whatever happen... happen. CCWs? I think that's great. If you've proven you can handle a weapon, you pass an intensive background check, you don't have mental issues, bad run-ins with the law -- I'm all for CCWs within reason.

@hulugu responded much better than I did.

 

[fooferdoggie]

man saw these idiots driving around honking. man a bunch of in bread white trash idiots.