...

Derek Chauvin: Convicted Murderer
Michael Byrd: Investigated by his own department, not charged, won't stand trial

Not sure how that's related?

I can imagine myself in a situation, and judge how I would likely react.

I judge myself on morality, not legality.

Those two statements are not incongruent, in any way.

In my perception, would I be defending myself/others from a seemingly violent mob that was making entry into my space? Would they be posing a threat? A man is crawling into your house after busting the window on your door, what do you do?

What I will do and what we need to do is remove from power the people criminalizing us defending ourselves, standing up for ourselves and creating a two-tiered legal system that is literally killing us, while letting their preferred groups wreck all the chaos, havoc and violence on society they want without any legal consequences.

At some point this needs to end. Let's hope we can do it peacefully via the ballot box.

I agree. But also understand there's nuance in a situation, and even someone you don't like or disagree with 100% politically, can be morally right, or deserve benefit of the doubt in a fucky situation.

The key to being objective is to view things from all sides, not just yours.

I put myself in that position and question what I would do.

I've stated numerous times that if I was, for example, downtown at Macy's, and Antifa pulled their shit they were doing like running pikes through windows, and trying to crawl through the hole, I would not allow them to make entry, due to their obvious violent intent.

I see this in the same context. Person defending himself and others, 'violent' mob busting out windows/doors trying to get in.

Perception is reality.

Law doesn't care how you judge yourself. Everybody has its own bugs in the head. Hope you're not a LEO in real life. You're just repeating antifa's position that allowed themselves openly criminal behavior because it was "morally" justified to fight "fascists", "white supremasicists", etc.

And from the point of view of the law this was NOT a situation where somebody trespasses into your "place of abode" under "castle doctrine". And the "castle doctrine" is the only EXCEPTION allowing you to use a deadly force against simple trespass and infer a violent intent and threat to your life from the trespass. (And, btw, in DC even if it was your "place of abode" they do not have a "castle doctrine" providing you with this exception.)

And remember, it doesn't matter if the mob outside is actually being violent or not. What matters is what a reasonable person in that situation would do with the knowledge they had at the time. If that reasonable person is under the impression that there is a violent mob attempting to force entry, well, that counts for something.

Which is why, although I think it's a shit situation and wished it ended without a lethal use of force, I understand why he shot, and probably would have done the same thing if I was in that situation, as I've explained I would in similar situations.

Today's freedom fighter is tomorrow's terrorist.

The Boston tea party was carried out by 'terrorists'... The revolution was fought by 'traitors'.....

Of course Antifa thinks they're morally superior..... Just like ISIS, and Timothy Mcveigh....and George Washington... and... you get the idea...

I guess the lesson here is win or die. How sad for our society. I wonder how many would have called the Boston massacre a "good shoot" if they lived at the time instead of looking back now.

Ultimately, yes.



Depends on your definition of tyranny, and where your moral compass aligns.

I've seen plenty of posts talking about how cops should beat the shit out of/shoot antifa rioters... If you recall, the Boston Massacre involved people throwing rocks and the like.. So, if you're seeing the British as an occupying force and tyrannical, then it's excessive. If you view them as peace keepers putting down a riot/'insurrection', then you'd probably support them.

No, it doesn't matter "what a reasonable person in that situation would do".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide


Remove any component from this and you're a murderer.

Byrd is the only idiot on the force with a habit to hold his twitchy finger on a trigger in the whole Jan 6 riots who believed that. How is this "reasonable"? Only trial could "exonerate" him.

A trial by jury would seem appropriate.

Not sure what this sentiment has to do with Ashli's murder. My point is about whether execution of a trespassing political protester by gov-t police officer was legally excusable. Whether one sees her as a freedom fighter or a terrorist , or "traitor" shouldn't matter in this case. What matters to me is 1A and the law.

Here we're in a full agreement.
Instead we got unprecedented measures to deny any prosecution effort and keeping even a killer's identity "secret" since Jan... People who were burning cities screaming "say her name" - suddenly sneering "she deserved it as terrorist she was" and welcoming internal police investigation. Alternate universe... So moreover - I see the gov-t explicitly complicit in her murder by denying justice for her and her family.