Anarchy In Portland

[1972 Grad]

I watched a YouTube video that displayed the arrest warrant that detailed the whole timeline. Its obvious he stalked these guys for the purpose of murdering them. Evil can spin it any way she wants but it was a straight up execution. I can try and post the video if anyone is interested.

I would say that Cornhole, or whatever his name was, showed consciousness of guilt, by shooting it out with the police.

 

[evillawyer]

I watched a YouTube video that displayed the arrest warrant that detailed the whole timeline. Its obvious he stalked these guys for the purpose of murdering them. Evil can spin it any way she wants but it was a straight up execution. I can try and post the video if anyone is interested.

The new surveillance images do add a twist (but I have not seen anything beyond the two freeze frames; has that entire video been released?). Some things still need explaining. First, whose voice do we hear saying "we got us a couple here"? That voice sounds very much like Chandler Pappas. Second, the video of the shooting clearly shows the shooter crossing the street and retreating from the victim and the victim walking towards the shooter and raising a can of mace before being fired upon. That's a strange thing to do if you're stalking someone for a murder.

 

[Vol737]

Does anyone think any sane family will ever move to Portland or good company would relocate to that catastrophe zone? They have a big problem on their hands in that city. It's only going to get worse as they attract a certain type of cretin.

I would quit my job if I worked for a company that told me I had to move to Portland. Money wouldn’t even talk me into that.

 

[headhunter15]

 

[BeecherVol]

The new surveillance images do add a twist (but I have not seen anything beyond the two freeze frames; has that entire video been released?). Some things still need explaining. First, whose voice do we hear saying "we got us a couple here"? That voice sounds very much like Chandler Pappas. Second, the video of the shooting clearly shows the shooter crossing the street and retreating from the victim and the victim walking towards the shooter and raising a can of mace before being fired upon. That's a strange thing to do if you're stalking someone for a murder.

You swung at what you wanted to be true and missed.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The new surveillance images do add a twist (but I have not seen anything beyond the two freeze frames; has that entire video been released?). Some things still need explaining. First, whose voice do we hear saying "we got us a couple here"? That voice sounds very much like Chandler Pappas. Second, the video of the shooting clearly shows the shooter crossing the street and retreating from the victim and the victim walking towards the shooter and raising a can of mace before being fired upon. That's a strange thing to do if you're stalking someone for a murder.

It was a total hit. He stalked them, walked up to them, and shot him.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The last great president IMO.

 

[evillawyer]

You swung at what you wanted to be true and missed.

Everything I argued in grounded in the video. The shooter, as he's crossing the street, is retreating (at an angle) from the victim prior to stopping and shooting and the victim is walking directly towards the shooter. That's not really consistent with someone hunting down and killing somebody. I also note that Pappas on the day after the shooting specifically stated that the voices we hear on the tape saying "we got us a couple here" were from the shooter but that is NOT in the arrest warrant, which describes what he told police.

Seems like that would have been in the warrant if he had told the police that.

Here's what it says:

Pappas identified the deceased individual as a friend he knew as “Jay”. Pappas
stated he and “Jay” had been drinking earlier in the evening and had gone to the
downtown area to see what was going on. Pappas said he and “Jay” were walking on
SW 3rd Avenue toward the Justice Center. Pappas said he and “Jay” turned back
toward the intersection of SW 3rd Avenue and SW Alder Street and recalled seeing two
subjects. Pappas said he and "Jay” were facing off with the two subjects. Pappas said
he then heard two gun shots and described the shooter was the subject to his right,
stating, “It was the guy on the ******* right who fired”. Pappas stated the shooter was
“right-handed” and recalled seeing the shooter putting his arm down when he turned to
run.
Pappas said he could not recall the exact clothing of the shooter, but stated, “It
wasn’t all black”. Pappas further described the shooter by stating, “He was a white guy”,
subsequently adding, “And I’m fairly certain it was a white guy. I’m in shock, I don’t
remember. Like all that stuff”. Pappas added he could not describe the second subject
who was with the shooter.

 

[BeecherVol]

Everything I argued in grounded in the video. The shooter, as he's crossing the street, is retreating (at an angle) from the victim prior to stopping and shooting and the victim is walking directly towards the shooter. That's not really consistent with someone hunting down and killing somebody. I also note that Pappas on the day after the shooting specifically stated that the voices we hear on the tape saying "we got us a couple here" were from the shooter but that is NOT in the arrest warrant, which describes what he told police.

Seems like that would have been in the warrant if he had told the police that.

Here's what it says:

Pappas identified the deceased individual as a friend he knew as “Jay”. Pappas
stated he and “Jay” had been drinking earlier in the evening and had gone to the
downtown area to see what was going on. Pappas said he and “Jay” were walking on
SW 3rd Avenue toward the Justice Center. Pappas said he and “Jay” turned back
toward the intersection of SW 3rd Avenue and SW Alder Street and recalled seeing two
subjects. Pappas said he and "Jay” were facing off with the two subjects. Pappas said
he then heard two gun shots and described the shooter was the subject to his right,
stating, “It was the guy on the ******* right who fired”. Pappas stated the shooter was
“right-handed” and recalled seeing the shooter putting his arm down when he turned to
run.
Pappas said he could not recall the exact clothing of the shooter, but stated, “It
wasn’t all black”. Pappas further described the shooter by stating, “He was a white guy”,
subsequently adding, “And I’m fairly certain it was a white guy. I’m in shock, I don’t
remember. Like all that stuff”. Pappas added he could not describe the second subject
who was with the shooter.

You missed.

You sure you re not in the media?

 

[evillawyer]

You missed.

You sure you re not in the media?

It looks like the portland PD has only released screenshots from the surveillance video. I'd love to see the full video. Wouldn't you?

These are the only three screenshots I've seen

 

[InVOLuntary]

Everything I argued in grounded in the video. The shooter, as he's crossing the street, is retreating (at an angle) from the victim prior to stopping and shooting and the victim is walking directly towards the shooter. That's not really consistent with someone hunting down and killing somebody. I also note that Pappas on the day after the shooting specifically stated that the voices we hear on the tape saying "we got us a couple here" were from the shooter but that is NOT in the arrest warrant, which describes what he told police.

Seems like that would have been in the warrant if he had told the police that.

Here's what it says:

Pappas identified the deceased individual as a friend he knew as “Jay”. Pappas
stated he and “Jay” had been drinking earlier in the evening and had gone to the
downtown area to see what was going on. Pappas said he and “Jay” were walking on
SW 3rd Avenue toward the Justice Center. Pappas said he and “Jay” turned back
toward the intersection of SW 3rd Avenue and SW Alder Street and recalled seeing two
subjects. Pappas said he and "Jay” were facing off with the two subjects. Pappas said
he then heard two gun shots and described the shooter was the subject to his right,
stating, “It was the guy on the ******* right who fired”. Pappas stated the shooter was
“right-handed” and recalled seeing the shooter putting his arm down when he turned to
run.
Pappas said he could not recall the exact clothing of the shooter, but stated, “It
wasn’t all black”. Pappas further described the shooter by stating, “He was a white guy”,
subsequently adding, “And I’m fairly certain it was a white guy. I’m in shock, I don’t
remember. Like all that stuff”. Pappas added he could not describe the second subject
who was with the shooter.

You're fishing in the dead sea. Take your loss. One of your people executed a guy. Own it. It's the reality of the democratic party. It's what it's become. Either embrace it or dexit.

 

[BeecherVol]

It looks like the portland PD has only released screenshots from the surveillance video. I'd love to see the full video. Wouldn't you?

These are the only three screenshots I've seen

Why would you need it. You had this figured out days ago without it.

 

[evillawyer]

You're fishing in the dead sea. Take your loss. One of your people executed a guy. Own it. It's the reality of the democratic party. It's what it's become. Either embrace it or dexit.

The shooters account is that they were going to attack a person of color that he knew. All that the Portland PD released are the screenshots. I'd like to see the full video. We don't know why those two upstanding young gentlemen carrying mace, a baton, and a loaded gun decided to cross the street. We don't know why the shooter went in to the garage and then back out. We don't know why he crossed the street. Maybe the full video would she'd a little light on this.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The shooters account is that they were going to attack a person of color that he knew. All that the Portland PD released are the screenshots. I'd like to see the full video. We don't know why those two upstanding young gentlemen carrying mace, a baton, and a loaded gun decided to cross the street. We don't know why the shooter went in to the garage and then back out. We don't know why he crossed the street. Maybe the full video would she'd a little light on this.

Why they were crossing the street is irrelevant. Do you think the rioters have more rights to the streets than others? Does antifa/blm now have exclusive rights to the streets? How did we obtain the shooter's account? Is he not dead? If you don't see the need to carry protection in a democratic controlled war zone, I don't know what to tell you. Obviously, they needed more, one was executed.

Ask yourself a question, if the roles were reversed, would you be trying as hard to find some thread of hope that a Trump supporter was in the right given the same set of circumstances (lutz)? Like I know you want this to be something other than what it is but you need to own it. This is your people, your side. It's your party. It's Biden's party. It's Harris's party, the Clinton's party, the Obama party/legacy. Embrace it, fondle it, Waller in it.

 

[1972 Grad]

The shooters account is that they were going to attack a person of color that he knew. All that the Portland PD released are the screenshots. I'd like to see the full video. We don't know why those two upstanding young gentlemen carrying mace, a baton, and a loaded gun decided to cross the street. We don't know why the shooter went in to the garage and then back out. We don't know why he crossed the street. Maybe the full video would she'd a little light on this.

I guess that the innocent Mr. Cornholio went into hiding, and later shot it out with the police for sport? Or, because he knew he was guilty of murder?

 

[ETV]

Just another night of peaceful protests - Democrats

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[AM64]

Pathetic. No place for police brutality in a civilized country.

You call what the "protesters" are doing as "civilized". Looks more like time to "fight fire with fire" and "an eye for an eye" approach.

Now if you want to actually step away from riots to day to day encounters. Cops are civilians and members or the military are exactly that - military. Back the cops down from calling non cops "civilians" and take the military toys away from them - probably including SWAT teams (perhaps a few of those at the state level). The 9/11 knee jerk reaction to policing in this country was a colossal blunder. Police departments are civil law enforcement and need the appropriate tools - and apparently need to be reminded of that. Someone else should be handling insurrection and rioting.

However, what's going to be hard for you and most libs to swallow is that the violence and the "cops out of control" sentiment is happening in Democratic and largely liberal controlled cities. Look to you own side for fascist tactics and failure to govern.

 

[AM64]

To be far some of the biggest psychopaths in history can come from married couples. For instance, Columbine kids.

There is a greater risk of crime when the streets and schools/universities educate and raise kids when there is a single parent household but these nutcases appear to be basement and garage outcasts that probably don't work a consistent job then the parents hear them but don't see them coming in a 3:30am each morning. Then never really ask what they are doing because they have a strong idea. They want free stuff and are mad at the world for having to be responsible in this world. They didn't ask for that responsibility and they don't want it.

I'm in the minority and have caught plenty of crap over the years for my view, but I put a lot of the blame on the feminists of the late 60s and 70s - the ones who advocated giving up the responsibility of rearing children for careers. I can fully understand how a career can be a measure of self worth and importance perhaps, but what exactly is more important in the world than the future generations. I honestly think we could survive a slowdown in the manufacturing/business sector to ensure that our kids come from homes where they receive proper care and guidance. My argument is that one parent needs to devote his or her time to children if they choose to have them. Not much hope at this time for putting that genie back in the bottle, though, because once the workforce was flooded and wages/costs adapted, too many families have no real choice about going back to single incomes.

 

[AM64]

The shooters account is that they were going to attack a person of color that he knew. All that the Portland PD released are the screenshots. I'd like to see the full video. We don't know why those two upstanding young gentlemen carrying mace, a baton, and a loaded gun decided to cross the street. We don't know why the shooter went in to the garage and then back out. We don't know why he crossed the street. Maybe the full video would she'd a little light on this.

To get from the left to the right obviously.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

The voice you hear on the tapes coordinating the macing was patriot prayer member chandler pappas. And the video clearly shows a discharge from the mace can preceding the discharge from the gun. So the Trumpers were coordinating the macing and "fired first." Doesn't mean that the shooter could defend himself with a gun (mace is not a deadly weapon, but it remains (and will forever remain) unclear what the shooter thought was in the victim's hand), but the ANTIFA shooter was not the agressor or instigator.

Apparently, I need to go back and look at this again.

 

[evillawyer]

Apparently, I need to go back and look at this again.

Here's some enhanced video. As you can see, the shooter is crossing at an angle and moving AWAY from the victim. Then you hear Pappas try to coordinate the macing and the victim walks directly towards the shooter and starts to raise up his hand, which was carrying mace (not clear the shooter knew what he was carrying though). Then the shooter fires. Again, I'm not saying this constitutes self defense. I'm just not seeing evidence that the shooter was the instigator.

And slow mo

 

[VolStrom]

Here's some enhanced video. As you can see, the shooter is crossing at an angle and moving AWAY from the victim. Then you hear Pappas try to coordinate the macing and the victim walks directly towards the shooter and starts to raise up his hand, which was carrying mace (not clear the shooter knew what he was carrying though). Then the shooter fires. Again, I'm not saying this constitutes self defense. I'm just not seeing evidence that the shooter was the instigator.

The bottom line is if your party would quit it's terrorism campaign people would stop dying.

 

[GreyWolf1129]

You call what the "protesters" are doing as "civilized". Looks more like time to "fight fire with fire" and "an eye for an eye" approach.

Now if you want to actually step away from riots to day to day encounters. Cops are civilians and members or the military are exactly that - military. Back the cops down from calling non cops "civilians" and take the military toys away from them - probably including SWAT teams (perhaps a few of those at the state level). The 9/11 knee jerk reaction to policing in this country was a colossal blunder. Police departments are civil law enforcement and need the appropriate tools - and apparently need to be reminded of that. Someone else should be handling insurrection and rioting.

However, what's going to be hard for you and most libs to swallow is that the violence and the "cops out of control" sentiment is happening in Democratic and largely liberal controlled cities. Look to you own side for fascist tactics and failure to govern.

There is some reason to what you propose, and as a peace officer (and military veteran) I can see it. But you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater by your proposals regarding SWAT teams and "military toys".

I would support some form of standardized "SWAT certification criteria", perhaps at the state level. I would also challenge judges to use the no-knock provision on search warrants very carefully. But beyond that, and more importantly...

In the event of an active shooter, be it a school, church, WalMart, wherever...for us the GSP SWAT team is at best two hours away. So we train, and are equipped for "one, two, go". We carry hard armor, and semi-auto SBR's. We train quarterly, using Simunitions, in an old abandoned elementary school. We use as many role players as we can gin up, usually around half a dozen. Quite a number of us have attended an Active Shooter Training program that also uses Simunitions and dozens of role players acting as the wounded, the panic-stricken trying to get away, those who freeze and just lay there, and the bad guys (sometimes multiple). We did multiple scenarios a day, and had to immediately repeat any scenario where either our tactics, decision-making, or aim were flawed. One of the hardest weeks of my life.

Now, who who you rather see going into the elementary school your child or grandchild attends? Me, having met a fairly high training standard and being equipped with what some might term "military toys", or a civil law enforcement officer who is neither trained nor equipped to respond to, confront, or deal with a violent, evil assault that comes out of nowhere. I know, but I had to make that point.

There's a middle ground here. I'd say you keep the German Sheperd that can eat a brick. You just keep him leashed unless you have to turn him loose, and make sure he's trained well in case you do.

The days of Mayberry RFD are gone. These are the days of the Walking Dead-From-The-Neck-Up, and unfortunately there are a lot of them out there masquerading under a variety of activist political banners. The only thing a bully understands is fear. Time to make those who bring chaos to our streets experience the same fear they are causing among people who just want to live their life and be left alone.

JMO. Rant over.

 

[AM64]

There is some reason to what you propose, and as a peace officer (and military veteran) I can see it. But you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater by your proposals regarding SWAT teams and "military toys".

I would support some form of standardized "SWAT certification criteria", perhaps at the state level. I would also challenge judges to use the no-knock provision on search warrants very carefully. But beyond that, and more importantly...

In the event of an active shooter, be it a school, church, WalMart, wherever...for us the GSP SWAT team is at best two hours away. So we train, and are equipped for "one, two, go". We carry hard armor, and semi-auto SBR's. We train quarterly, using Simunitions, in an old abandoned elementary school. We use as many role players as we can gin up, usually around half a dozen. Quite a number of us have attended an Active Shooter Training program that also uses Simunitions and dozens of role players acting as the wounded, the panic-stricken trying to get away, those who freeze and just lay there, and the bad guys (sometimes multilple). We did multiple scenarios a day, and had to immediately repeat any scenario where either our tactics, decision-making, or aim were flawed. One of the hardest weeks of my life.

Now, who who you rather see going into the elementary school your child or grandchild attends? Me, having met a fairly high training standard and being equipped with what some might term "military toys", or a civil law enforcement officer who is neither trained nor equipped to respond to, confront, or deal with a violent, evil assault that comes out of nowhere. I know, but I had to make that point.

There's a middle ground here. I'd say you keep the German Sheperd that can eat a brick. You just keep him leashed unless you have to turn him loose, and make sure he's trained well in case you do.

The days of Mayberry RFD are gone. These are the days of the Walking Dead-From-The-Neck-Up, and unfortunately there are a lot of them out there masquerading under a variety of activist political banners. The only thing a bully understands is fear. Time to make those who bring chaos to our streets experience the same fear they are causing among people who just want to live their life and be left alone.

JMO. Rant over.

I certainly appreciate your perspective and agree you view things from an aspect that most of us can't. Please, understand I have no agenda against the police.

We've all seen news stories of SWAT teams rolling up in simple cases where a guy barricades himself in a house and threatens no one else; I fail to see where APCs full of testosterone warriors carrying M-16s the answer - the guy's got to come out sometime - if he doesn't, problem solved. If there are others in the house, it seems like stealth rather than confrontation would be a better tactic. Somewhat the same with a school shooter - you have to do the who, how, and where stuff before the action.

You may have read in this or other threads that we had a good friend shot and killed by an unidentified cop who intentionally and without warning fired through a window at night. This friend was a retired Navy officer and a nurse; he served with my wife who is also a retired Navy officer - I'm just a run of the mill Army vet. My issue is that there is a time when urgency is required and when some intelligence (military type - the gathering of fact) and the good ole non testosterone common sense type should prevail. This police action resulted from a single phone call by a not too stable mother in law of the victim's daughter - apparently without any fact checking - just armed response.

Yes, the Mayberry RFD days are dead, but it doesn't mean that measured non confrontational response should also be dead. For the record, I'd say if someone being arrested turns confrontational and tries to run and be a harm to others (that day or another), he deserves what he gets. What I don't get is continued force to continue to restrain someone when a logical answer seems to be cuffs on the ankles as well as the wrists. There are always better ways than simple brute force. I learned many years ago that the guy doing a job knows best how to do the job; I also learned over the years that the dumb question or comment by an outsider unlocks a lot of answers that are difficult for those too close to see.

 

[happy-go_vol]

I'm in the minority and have caught plenty of crap over the years for my view, but I put a lot of the blame on the feminists of the late 60s and 70s - the ones who advocated giving up the responsibility of rearing children for careers. I can fully understand how a career can be a measure of self worth and importance perhaps, but what exactly is more important in the world than the future generations. I honestly think we could survive a slowdown in the manufacturing/business sector to ensure that our kids come from homes where they receive proper care and guidance. My argument is that one parent needs to devote his or her time to children if they choose to have them. Not much hope at this time for putting that genie back in the bottle, though, because once the workforce was flooded and wages/costs adapted, too many families have no real choice about going back to single incomes.

True, the goal of communists was to destroy the nuclear family and replace with the government. The results are what we see now. Boys need a strong father who is married to the mother.