Note, I’m neither American, nor heavily in that scene. I’m merely signal boosting what I feel is important information countering lib propaganda.
Note, I’m neither American, nor heavily in that scene. I’m merely signal boosting what I feel is important information countering lib propaganda.
A single blurry still doesn’t pose a convincing argument that he was or wasn’t pointing the weapon towards the crowds.
I’ve not seen enough to conclude either way. So many contradicting things.
If you were wanting to assist with security, when someone obviously doing security addresses you then you’d try and comply, and explain your intent. But did the security actually address him? Or did he just run away from a gun pointed at him? Or did he have his gun pointed in the direction of the crowd while moving towards the crowd and ignoring security? Much of this doesn’t make sense.
We don’t go around making plausible reasons and then asking the victim to prove them wrong. Maybe the killers are lying to cover their ass?
Facts on the ground is: Arturo didn’t shoot anyone, had a right to carry, a bystander was killed by the “good guys” and Arturo was shot himself. Nothing in all of this proves that Arturo was a danger to anyone.
“Innocent until proven guilty” mfs when the accused is a leftist
The victim blaming with assumed narratives no less, is astounding.
What, you expect me to have evidence?
Just because he didn’t shoot anyone, doesn’t mean his alleged actions wouldn’t cause the same reaction or worse from any other reasonable person.
Again, things aren’t lining up with the two sides/stories.
Ye which is why I’m inclined to believe the non-killer’s story rather than the ones with the most incentive to lie
Both have a very high incentive to lie.
Unless more evidence appears, I’m more inclined to believe the person who didn’t shoot anyone, even when they had plenty of opportunity to do so (in self defense no less) and have a history of protecting others.
Yep this really just seems like a tragedy from someone being overzealous. In the end only hurting allies. There’s no good outcome from this. But arguably the worst I think is to demonize an ally in an attempt to deflect blame. By shooting “preemptively” they’re where there blame lays unfortunately.
I don’t necessarily think that there should be imprisonment or jail in this for anyone. It was all completely unintentional. And doesn’t serve any public good. But I think unfortunately a lot of people are going to want someone to crucify or demonize.
And I’m not telling you not to. I’m just saying I’m unconvinced, and without more factual information I can’t make a decision either way.
Security was across the street and started shooting before he ever acknowledged them. They were far enough that it’s conceivable he didn’t hear them at all. He didn’t run until they fired. This is all in the link they provided. It’s a video, not a still.
If you want to know what actually happened, just listen to the cops and then believe the opposite.
I like the spirit, but IMO we need more “on the ground” details to come to an actual conclusion. Cops suck but there are lots of ways to come up with “the opposite story”.
I’m working under “innocent until proven guilty” logic, but as of this posting I absolutely cannot make any positive conclusion about what happened other than the one second video clip posted in the comments.
That clip is already enough to contradict the security dudes’ statement.
Thanks for the link. I hadn’t found it elsewhere.
The burden of proof is on the ones accusing and having people detained.
You don’t have to prove you didn’t do something. The state has to prove that you did do it. We should assume he is innocent in the absence of evidence.