Domestic Terrorism In Jacksonville

[VolnJC]

Suspect deliberately targeted Trump supporters in parking lot.

 

[VolnJC]

 

[happy-go_vol]

Hate crimes are not against white Republicans. Equal protection doesnt include whites. Unless they're part of the alphabet group

 

[Tennesseefan2019]

Thug who tried to run over Trump supporters admits why he did it

 

[utvolpj]

Hate crimes are not against white Republicans. Equal protection doesnt include whites. Unless they're part of the alphabet group

Actually it doesn't include political affiliation. Race is not tied to that

 

[DynaLo]

Gee I wonder, would someone trying to run you over with a motor vehicle constitute enough of a imminent threat to your life to justify a lethal response?

 

[Vol737]

Gee I wonder, would someone trying to run you over with a motor vehicle constitute enough of a imminent threat to your life to justify a lethal response?

A full 9mm clip emptied into his windshield would’ve been a solid deterrent, one would think.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

A full 9mm clip emptied into his windshield would’ve been a solid deterrent, one would think.

What if a driver has a medical issue like diabetes? It's not a good idea for lead to be flying around unless the driver is hanging out the window screaming Allahu Akbar.

 

[Vol737]

What if a driver has a medical issue like diabetes? It's not a good idea for lead to be flying around unless the driver is hanging out the window screaming Allahu Akbar.

True, but I believe this person had already exhibited suspicious behavior and then accelerated his car toward the tent where people were working.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

True, but I believe this person had already exhibited suspicious behavior and then accelerated his car toward the tent where people were working.

If it's obvious, blast him. If it's not and all of a sudden the CCP guys start unloading on the car with a lot of people in the cross fire the anti-2H nuts will have a field day.

 

[LouderVol]

What if a driver has a medical issue like diabetes? It's not a good idea for lead to be flying around unless the driver is hanging out the window screaming Allahu Akbar.

So that makes it ok to get hit? You have no right to defend yourself from those actions.

Personally I wouldnt do it. But if I had kids there I wouldnt much care the reason he was coming at me.

 

[davethevol]

So that makes it ok to get hit? You have no right to defend yourself from those actions.

Personally I wouldnt do it. But if I had kids there I wouldnt much care the reason he was coming at me.

I would say if it’s a car that’s showing no sign of stopping a person would serve no jail time regardless of who’s behind the wheel. If your life is in danger, the law states you can use lethal force to protect yourself.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Gee I wonder, would someone trying to run you over with a motor vehicle constitute enough of a imminent threat to your life to justify a lethal response?

yes

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

So that makes it ok to get hit? You have no right to defend yourself from those actions.

Personally I wouldnt do it. But if I had kids there I wouldnt much care the reason he was coming at me.

When did I say it's okay? If a driver loses control of their car due to a medical issue we don't need a bunch of cowboys whipping out their weapons and start unloading into an out of control vehicle. The lefties would love to see a bunch of collateral damage so that they have a narrative to take away even more 2A rights. Anybody that shoots into a car with a debilitated driver should never own a gun again and serve decades in prison.

 

[hndog609]

When did I say it's okay? If a driver loses control of their car due to a medical issue we don't need a bunch of cowboys whipping out their weapons and start unloading into an out of control vehicle. The lefties would love to see a bunch of collateral damage so that they have a narrative to take away even more 2A rights. Anybody that shoots into a car with a debilitated driver should never own a gun again and serve decades in prison.

Let's say this argument makes perfect sense after the fact. (actually it does) What criteria do you think would be available to people actually in the moment to make that determination when faced by a vehicle charging into a crowd?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Let's say this argument makes perfect sense after the fact. (actually it does) What criteria do you think would be available to people actually in the moment to make that determination when faced by a vehicle charging into a crowd?

It's stupid to assume that an out of control vehicle is a good reason to shoot it up.

 

[hndog609]

It's stupid to assume that an out of control vehicle is a good reason to shoot it up.

Really didn't address the question asked. In the moment of having a vehicle charging a crowd what might allow the potential victims to accurately ascertain the reason behind the event?

To be honest it'd probably be very unlikely the initial action would be to respond with anything other than getting out of the way in a true "accident" scenario. There would likely be time for little else. Something deliberate might include not stopping and continuing to drive in a manner that is inflicting more harm.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Really didn't address the question asked. In the moment of having a vehicle charging a crowd what might allow the potential victims to accurately ascertain the reason behind the event?

To be honest it'd probably be very unlikely the initial action would be to respond with anything other than getting out of the way in a true "accident" scenario. There would likely be time for little else. Something deliberate might include not stopping and continuing to drive in a manner that is inflicting more harm.

Stopping and continuing to drive in a certain manner is a different scenario than a car with an incapacitated driver is going to display. I'm starting to think that an IQ test might be a necessary component when screening for a CCP. Liberals might have a good argument when the Lumpy Lambert types come to mind.

 

[hndog609]

Stopping and continuing to drive in a certain manner is a different scenario than a car with an incapacitated driver is going to display. I'm starting to think that an IQ test might be a necessary component when screening for a CCP. Liberals might have a good argument when the Lumpy Lambert types comes to mind.

So you're still ignoring the first question and agreeing with my second assertion. This is not a good time to start talking about IQ tests.

Assuming the hypothetical that a vehicle is imminently going to be slamming into innocent people and someone was somehow in such a position to safely (direct line of fire) and immediately engage the vehicle with a firearm what exactly would allow them the insight to assume this is an accident and not a deadly threat? I'm not advocating any particular action...I'm curious as to how you would answer the question of having a would be victim display the kind of prescience you appear willing to bestow such a person.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

So you're still ignoring the first question and agreeing with my second assertion. This is not a good time to start talking about IQ tests.

Assuming the hypothetical that a vehicle is imminently going to be slamming into innocent people and someone was somehow in such a position to safely (direct line of fire) and immediately engage the vehicle with a firearm what exactly would allow them the insight to assume this is an accident and not a deadly threat? I'm not advocating any particular action...I'm curious as to how you would answer the question of having a would be victim display the kind of prescience you appear willing to bestow such a person.

I said it in my first post. If the driver is hanging out the window screaming god is great in Arabic, then opening fire is justified. Just because there is a crowd in the vicenity of an out of control car, that doesn't justify shooting it up. If anybody ever shoots into a moving vehicle and it's later determined that they ignorantly mistook an accident for an attack, then they should have their guns taken away forever at a minimum, and be dealt with criminally and civily. Even if the vehicle isn't going in a straight line, the driver could be unconscious and the passenger could be trying to manage the steering from their seat. Also, if a passed out driver comes to, their instinct very well could be to jerk the wheel or to press the pedal when their foot is on the accelerator. The potential for more carnage in the crossfire is going to be greater than a hero whipping out his sidearm and ending a threat in a matter of seconds. Keep the damn guns in their holsters and get the f out of the way. If they are also shooting from the driver's compartment, then shoot back.

 

[volfanjustin]

I wonder if this guy will get a spot speaking at the socialists convention if they ever nominate a candidate

 

[hndog609]

I said it in my first post. If the driver is hanging out the window screaming god is great in Arabic, then opening fire is justified. Just because there is a crowd in the vicenity of an out of control car, that doesn't justify shooting it up. If anybody ever shoots into a moving vehicle and it's later determined that they ignorantly mistook an accident for an attack, then they should have their guns taken away forever at a minimum, and be dealt with criminally and civily. Even if the vehicle isn't going in a straight line, the driver could be unconscious and the passenger could be trying to manage the steering from their seat. Also, if a passed out driver comes to, their instinct very well could be to jerk the wheel or to press the pedal when their foot is on the accelerator. The potential for more carnage in the crossfire is going to be greater than a hero whipping out his sidearm and ending a threat in a matter of seconds. Keep the damn guns in their holsters and get the f out of the way. If they are also shooting from the driver's compartment, then shoot back.

I agree with a lot of the general tone but you have a bit of a wall of assumptions that I've been trying to get past.

Bearing in mind I've already stated I think it pretty unlikely a true "accident" would occur in such manner (time wise) to allow for immediate preventative engagement I keep patiently asking the same question without getting an actual answer so let's try again.

A vehicle is charging into a crowd. Against all odds someone actually was in a position to draw and fire a shot incapacitating the driver. The person in question was a crazed militant and it is universally acknowledged the armed citizens saved many people from death or injury.

or

A vehicle is charging into a crowd. Against all odds someone actually was in a position to draw and fire a shot incapacitating the driver. The driver had a stroke and had pressed the pedal as a result. It's actually STILL possible to argue the shot could have saved lives by taking such action (it did stop the driver's continued action, however unintentional) but there's no way of viewing any part of the incident as anything less than tragic.

What I'm trying to get from you (because I'm genuinely curious about how people view such things) is how you expect the firearm carrier to differentiate, in the literally seconds available to them, between the two possible scenarios.

As an aside if a firearm discharge results in harm to others there's going to be an investigation which could result in charges, criminal, civil or both. (hence the old chestnut of "Every bullet you fire in public has a lawyer attached")

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

I agree with a lot of the general tone but you have a bit of a wall of assumptions that I've been trying to get past.

Bearing in mind I've already stated I think it pretty unlikely a true "accident" would occur in such manner (time wise) to allow for immediate preventative engagement I keep patiently asking the same question without getting an actual answer so let's try again.

A vehicle is charging into a crowd. Against all odds someone actually was in a position to draw and fire a shot incapacitating the driver. The person in question was a crazed militant and it is universally acknowledged the armed citizens saved many people from death or injury.

or

A vehicle is charging into a crowd. Against all odds someone actually was in a position to draw and fire a shot incapacitating the driver. The driver had a stroke and had pressed the pedal as a result. It's actually STILL possible to argue the shot could have saved lives by taking such action (it did stop the driver's continued action, however unintentional) but there's no way of viewing any part of the incident as anything less than tragic.

What I'm trying to get from you (because I'm genuinely curious about how people view such things) is how you expect the firearm carrier to differentiate, in the literally seconds available to them, between the two possible scenarios.

As an aside if a firearm discharge results in harm to others there's going to be an investigation which could result in charges, criminal, civil or both. (hence the old chestnut of "Every bullet you fire in public has a lawyer attached")

Same car charging at a police roadblock.

Same car charging at a US embassy.


Do they ask him for his blood sugar levels?

 

[theFallGuy]

MSNBC Reports Republican Voter Registration Tent Deliberately Rammed Unsuspecting Van In Florida

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Same car charging at a police roadblock.

Same car charging at a US embassy.


Do they ask him for his blood sugar levels?

I would hope that the trained gun toting government employees would have excellent vision and be able to differentiate a crazed driver from an incapacitated driver before unloading into the vehicle. An embassy would have sufficient barriers to stop the latter.