Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the victim wasn't armed. Two or three of those kids getting dropped by their intended victim might change some minds about whether doing stuff like this is a good idea.

Yes, if only all potential victims would just arm themselves, this world would be a much safer place.

And certainly they would not hit any bystanders, what with it being in front of a big hotel in a busy neighborhood. Definitely safer.

Because we hear so often about *lawfully* armed citizens accidentally shooting innocent bystanders in self defense shootings, right? /s


You have the resources of the entire interwebz at your disposal. Find for us just 3 incidents - just three - where a person in public with a *legally carried* gun shot a innocent bystander or the wrong person by mistake.

Go. Start searching. Let us know what you turn up. If it happens as often as you imply, it should be a quick task.

We'll wait.

are you kidding? there are oodles of unintended shootings by people carrying legally. it literally happens every day.

Then please cite three examples where innocent bystanders have been shot by people carrying legally and using that gun in a self defense shooting. If it happens "every day", as you suggest, it should be very easy to provide three such instances.

Will you back up your assertion with actual data?

Or will you stick with meaningless anecdotal tripe?

The Costco shooting by a POLICE OFFICER. you really have a short memory. If even a licensed police officer can't avoid shooting civilians in "self defense" then what makes you think the average person could?

On sheer hair-splitting technicalities, that shooting had no "innocent bystanders". The only people shot by the police officer were those involved in the confrontation.

It was also very likely a criminal act by the officer, but that isn't germane to the point being debated

No, they were bystanders.

No, they weren't. All were related.

so you can shoot the family members of anyone you get into an argument with. wow, it gets better and better.

Stop. Just stop.

All three people who were shot were in a physical altercation with the officer when they were shot. It's not as though the officer shot one of them, then searched the rest of the store looking for the other two, shooting them when he found them. All three were in-contact physically with the officer when they were shot.

Your conflating and mischaracterizations of what occurred is shameful.

no, that’s not what happened. he got pushed and shot into a crowd, and shot 3 people.

Anonymous wrote:If I were planning a conference, I would think twice about holding it in DC.

Does that hotel even gave security?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the victim wasn't armed. Two or three of those kids getting dropped by their intended victim might change some minds about whether doing stuff like this is a good idea.

Yes, if only all potential victims would just arm themselves, this world would be a much safer place.

And certainly they would not hit any bystanders, what with it being in front of a big hotel in a busy neighborhood. Definitely safer.

Because we hear so often about *lawfully* armed citizens accidentally shooting innocent bystanders in self defense shootings, right? /s


You have the resources of the entire interwebz at your disposal. Find for us just 3 incidents - just three - where a person in public with a *legally carried* gun shot a innocent bystander or the wrong person by mistake.

Go. Start searching. Let us know what you turn up. If it happens as often as you imply, it should be a quick task.

We'll wait.

are you kidding? there are oodles of unintended shootings by people carrying legally. it literally happens every day.

Then please cite three examples where innocent bystanders have been shot by people carrying legally and using that gun in a self defense shooting. If it happens "every day", as you suggest, it should be very easy to provide three such instances.

Will you back up your assertion with actual data?

Or will you stick with meaningless anecdotal tripe?

The Costco shooting by a POLICE OFFICER. you really have a short memory. If even a licensed police officer can't avoid shooting civilians in "self defense" then what makes you think the average person could?

On sheer hair-splitting technicalities, that shooting had no "innocent bystanders". The only people shot by the police officer were those involved in the confrontation.

It was also very likely a criminal act by the officer, but that isn't germane to the point being debated

Here's some more reading for you:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bad_dgu/

None of those articles listed are about an innocent bystander being shot by a lawfully armed person engaged in self defense against some other person. That was the basis of the point in contention.

Your goalpost-moving is noted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PoPville comments on this news item remain at zero and the “Comment” button is missing.

Of course. He treats any issue that might elicit reactions counter to the progressive racial narrative like a third rail.

Heh, have you actually seen that comments section? He only shuts things down when the *overt* racists take over while letting subtle racism run rampant. But if you dare try to correct one of his many, many factual errors you get banned. Using the terms "feral youth" or "thugs" or "animals" is perfectly fine by Dan, who moved out of Petworth to one of DC's most whitebread neighborhoods after his house got re-districted into the Petworth DCPS elementary that has more black and brown kids and fewer white kids (he freely admitted this here: https://www.popville.com/2015/07/its-true-i-moved-from-petworth-but-my-love-remains-and-im-still-living-in-the-district/).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the victim wasn't armed. Two or three of those kids getting dropped by their intended victim might change some minds about whether doing stuff like this is a good idea.

Yes, if only all potential victims would just arm themselves, this world would be a much safer place.

And certainly they would not hit any bystanders, what with it being in front of a big hotel in a busy neighborhood. Definitely safer.

Because we hear so often about *lawfully* armed citizens accidentally shooting innocent bystanders in self defense shootings, right? /s


You have the resources of the entire interwebz at your disposal. Find for us just 3 incidents - just three - where a person in public with a *legally carried* gun shot a innocent bystander or the wrong person by mistake.

Go. Start searching. Let us know what you turn up. If it happens as often as you imply, it should be a quick task.

We'll wait.

are you kidding? there are oodles of unintended shootings by people carrying legally. it literally happens every day.

Then please cite three examples where innocent bystanders have been shot by people carrying legally and using that gun in a self defense shooting. If it happens "every day", as you suggest, it should be very easy to provide three such instances.

Will you back up your assertion with actual data?

Or will you stick with meaningless anecdotal tripe?

The Costco shooting by a POLICE OFFICER. you really have a short memory. If even a licensed police officer can't avoid shooting civilians in "self defense" then what makes you think the average person could?

On sheer hair-splitting technicalities, that shooting had no "innocent bystanders". The only people shot by the police officer were those involved in the confrontation.

It was also very likely a criminal act by the officer, but that isn't germane to the point being debated

No, they were bystanders.

No, they weren't. All were related.

so you can shoot the family members of anyone you get into an argument with. wow, it gets better and better.

Stop. Just stop.

All three people who were shot were in a physical altercation with the officer when they were shot. It's not as though the officer shot one of them, then searched the rest of the store looking for the other two, shooting them when he found them. All three were in-contact physically with the officer when they were shot.

Your conflating and mischaracterizations of what occurred is shameful.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read every post in this thread, and not one of them has advocated summary execution of all black children.

Hysterical hyperbole has no place in this conversation.

What about this one:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/818081.page#15419595

Too bad the victim wasn't armed. Two or three of those kids getting dropped by their intended victim might change some minds about whether doing stuff like this is a good idea.

The PP suggested that other posters were saying "all black youths should be executed", guilty and innocent alike. It's clear in the post you cited that that wasn't was the writer was suggesting. They were clearly suggesting that the teens involved in that attack get shot... not all black teens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I’m reading this thread correctly 99.999% of the posters who are getting their jollies off bashing all the black youth in DC don’t even live in the District and are too frightened to step foot in the District so, no disrespect, but f__k their opinion ons. Y’all don’t live here, y’all don’t come here, and considering your xenophobic attitudes y’all ain’t welcome here so...

Yeah, these "poor black youth" in the video. They're the victims.

-- long time DC resident

No
But the dozens of kids you and your ilk call the cops on for no reason other than their pigmentation will be victims.

My ilk? Calling the police on kids simply because they are not white? You are unhinged, living in a bitter fantasy world.

I don't see every person of color as a violent criminal.
Who's the one living in a bitter fantasy world?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I’m reading this thread correctly 99.999% of the posters who are getting their jollies off bashing all the black youth in DC don’t even live in the District and are too frightened to step foot in the District so, no disrespect, but f__k their opinion ons. Y’all don’t live here, y’all don’t come here, and considering your xenophobic attitudes y’all ain’t welcome here so...

Yeah, these "poor black youth" in the video. They're the victims.

-- long time DC resident

No
But the dozens of kids you and your ilk call the cops on for no reason other than their pigmentation will be victims.

My ilk? Calling the police on kids simply because they are not white? You are unhinged, living in a bitter fantasy world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wth? This thread is nuts. If crime like this continues DC will be Baltimore. No one goes there anymore and the city is dying.

for the zillionth time, you are welcome to post substantive, non-racist ideas about reducing crime.

I can attest to this. Baltimore is a former shell of itself.

Anonymous wrote:Wth? This thread is nuts. If crime like this continues DC will be Baltimore. No one goes there anymore and the city is dying.

for the zillionth time, you are welcome to post substantive, non-racist ideas about reducing crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the victim wasn't armed. Two or three of those kids getting dropped by their intended victim might change some minds about whether doing stuff like this is a good idea.

Yes, if only all potential victims would just arm themselves, this world would be a much safer place.

And certainly they would not hit any bystanders, what with it being in front of a big hotel in a busy neighborhood. Definitely safer.

Because we hear so often about *lawfully* armed citizens accidentally shooting innocent bystanders in self defense shootings, right? /s


You have the resources of the entire interwebz at your disposal. Find for us just 3 incidents - just three - where a person in public with a *legally carried* gun shot a innocent bystander or the wrong person by mistake.

Go. Start searching. Let us know what you turn up. If it happens as often as you imply, it should be a quick task.

We'll wait.

are you kidding? there are oodles of unintended shootings by people carrying legally. it literally happens every day.

Then please cite three examples where innocent bystanders have been shot by people carrying legally and using that gun in a self defense shooting. If it happens "every day", as you suggest, it should be very easy to provide three such instances.

Will you back up your assertion with actual data?

Or will you stick with meaningless anecdotal tripe?

The Costco shooting by a POLICE OFFICER. you really have a short memory. If even a licensed police officer can't avoid shooting civilians in "self defense" then what makes you think the average person could?

On sheer hair-splitting technicalities, that shooting had no "innocent bystanders". The only people shot by the police officer were those involved in the confrontation.

It was also very likely a criminal act by the officer, but that isn't germane to the point being debated

No, they were bystanders.

No, they weren't. All were related.

so you can shoot the family members of anyone you get into an argument with. wow, it gets better and better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of the racism, duh. The white nationalists who are jumping on this as a way to claim that black people are animals who should be shot or run from in fear.

Are you defending a bunch of teenage thugs for attacking a gay black man outside of a hotel just because they are black? Are you accusing others who find this unacceptable of being racists?? SMH.

No, that never happened. Just in your racist imagination.

So the video is just make believe and that DC is the land of lollipops, puppies and unicorns? Phew! Heading down to DC right now!

Nobody said that. not a SINGLE person has denied what happened or argued that prosecuting the kids would be racist. Not a single person.

Again, what they reacted to was the white nationalists saying that we should run away from/shoot all black people.

As a matter of actual fact, violent crime is down 2% so far this year in DC.

Police keep their own records; they lie and juke the data.

OK so, we should all be armed, never set foot in DC, and not trust MPD. Gotcha. Well, have fun in Whitefish, Montana.

Anonymous wrote:I've read every post in this thread, and not one of them has advocated summary execution of all black children.

Hysterical hyperbole has no place in this conversation.

What about this one:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/818081.page#15419595

Too bad the victim wasn't armed. Two or three of those kids getting dropped by their intended victim might change some minds about whether doing stuff like this is a good idea.

Wth? This thread is nuts. If crime like this continues DC will be Baltimore. No one goes there anymore and the city is dying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the victim wasn't armed. Two or three of those kids getting dropped by their intended victim might change some minds about whether doing stuff like this is a good idea.

Yes, if only all potential victims would just arm themselves, this world would be a much safer place.

And certainly they would not hit any bystanders, what with it being in front of a big hotel in a busy neighborhood. Definitely safer.

Because we hear so often about *lawfully* armed citizens accidentally shooting innocent bystanders in self defense shootings, right? /s


You have the resources of the entire interwebz at your disposal. Find for us just 3 incidents - just three - where a person in public with a *legally carried* gun shot a innocent bystander or the wrong person by mistake.

Go. Start searching. Let us know what you turn up. If it happens as often as you imply, it should be a quick task.

We'll wait.

are you kidding? there are oodles of unintended shootings by people carrying legally. it literally happens every day.

Then please cite three examples where innocent bystanders have been shot by people carrying legally and using that gun in a self defense shooting. If it happens "every day", as you suggest, it should be very easy to provide three such instances.

Will you back up your assertion with actual data?

Or will you stick with meaningless anecdotal tripe?

The Costco shooting by a POLICE OFFICER. you really have a short memory. If even a licensed police officer can't avoid shooting civilians in "self defense" then what makes you think the average person could?

On sheer hair-splitting technicalities, that shooting had no "innocent bystanders". The only people shot by the police officer were those involved in the confrontation.

It was also very likely a criminal act by the officer, but that isn't germane to the point being debated

No, they were bystanders.

No, they weren't. All were related.