Nobody got “smoked”, there were no injuries at all. Why the lie, @bobknight33? Why must you ALWAYS lie?

Curious why this 34 year old story is suddenly everywhere on right wing media and websites…and why they aren’t mentioning how it’s evolved over the years.
Is it an effort to poeticize a vigilante group as an example? They didn’t call police in the day long buildup to the shootout, nor immediately when it started, and they intentionally antagonized and threatened the neighbors they accused (without proof) of being gang members and shot up their house.

In 89 “lying in wait” was a death penalty offense in California…I guess not even a crime in Washington? They admitted they did exactly that.

Foulk said to 48 Hours in 1990 that he had told the Rangers to avoid hitting anyone and they followed instructions, not hitting anyone. In 2009, Foulk said to The News Tribune that one Ranger had in fact winged someone who charged the house. In 2022, he said to Fox 13 Seattle that the Rangers shot multiple people (no one ever went to any hospital with a gunshot). The story keeps growing every time he tells it.

Two men fitting descriptions given by the rangers were arrested on outstanding warrants and one later charged in connection to the shooting, and he received only one conviction, and only of second-degree assault. Neither lived across the street at the house the rangers shot to hell.
Many of the rangers lost their guns and Foulk says he was denied promotion as a result of the publicity caused by the shootout and that other Rangers were forbidden from visiting his home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Street_shootout

Downvoting this apparent attempt to glamorize what was a clear vigilante group that should have had much worse consequences than losing their guns and promotions.

Nah, he was illegally "defending" property that didn't belong to him (silly Wisconsin values human lives [even 'thugs'] more than used cars).

He was illegally practicing medicine by soliciting people and asking if they needed first aid. WI code allows for unlicensed medicine practice in an emergency ONLY (how do we know he was offering services absent an emergency? He was turned down repeatedly, aka there was no emergency where someone needed forst aid). Walking around offering first aid services is illegal without a license. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/448/ii/03

He illegally purchased a firearm through his uncle because he was under age.

He illegally was out past curfew for people 17 and under.

Gee, given all his lack of training and experience and maturity, I wonder why these things are illegal? Oh right, because someone so immature and ignorant of the law or disobedient of the law is more likely to be dangerous and kill someone when it's not warranted.


====

You can't escape the fact that WI law dictates that if he's already doing anything illegal he MUST exhaust all other reasonable options BEFORE using deadly force.

HE DID NOT DO SO. Someone fired a round in the air, someone lunged, and he killed em. Tangeal witnesses hear "he shot someone!" And give chase. He kills another. Why no empathy for the people who suspected he was a "thug" and tried to vigilante justice him?



And
And
And
ANOTHER THING
It's really ugly to witness the duality of your flippant attitude towards people trying to legally claim asylum 'they broke the law' because they went to the wrong entry point because they speak fucking Portuguese and don't always know exactly where they are out in the Mexico desert.
Vs the bizarre justification you're trying to make for this kid who 'broke the law' in, I contend, a series of more serious laws that warrant criminal liability.

If this kid gets off I hope he moves to NC and you run into him once he gets his highway patrol car. You can have him.

I'll take the family in Afghanistan I'm trying to help who, you know, don't get off on killing people.

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

He illegally owned a gun, and was doing some vigilante justice (also illegal), and was out as a 17 year old in Wisconsin past curfew

"No minor under the age of seventeen years shall be or remain in or upon any of the streets, alleys, other public places, or any private place held open to the public in the county between twelve o'clock midnight and five a.m., unless accompanied by a parent"

Then he killed several people by shooting them with an assault rifle.

You think that's maybe because it's the 17 year old who murdered two people and injured one shooting into a crowd?

Could it be because protesters are fighting for racial equality and an end to police murdering unarmed citizens because they're afraid of black people, and the militias are fighting against that and for the preservation of monuments to racism and racial superiority?

You think it might be because Trump and his cult are condoning and encouraging his vigilante murders as a one boy posse, jury, and executioner, but authorities have universally condemned rioting and arson?

You think it might be because Trump believers have been itching for an excuse to shoot some liberals for years, they haven't been quiet about it either, and it's clear they see the crumbling law and order under Trump as their chance to spark a culture/race/civil war, and are targeting antiracism protesters openly now, repeatedly and nation wide?

What do you think is the reason?

We aren't going to agree on this.

Like I said, I can't find all the videos because people are taking them down as fast as they go up, but it wasn't just some random person who fired, it was someone in the crowd that came after him for defending the store. These were not peaceful protesters, they were violent and had already attacked him before he fired, first with pepper spray and then charging and throwing an unidentified object at him that many thought was a molotov cocktail until it was later found to be something else.

If you think I am being deluded, so be it. But I did the best I could to show you as much evidence that I could find that he isn't just a gun vigilante that opened fire for no reason. You can't seem to move from your viewpoint that he is. Sorry.

I openly admit I’m plenty ignorant on the background to all this.

My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies. You had a very large crowd around him not content to shout him down, but intent on using force to chase him off and trying to again use force to take his sign from him. Thats over the line and I don’t care who is doing the pushing or what the sign actually says. As above, if the sign or message is itself a promotion of violence, then its the police and court system you want to pull in, not the mob or vigilantism.

The little background I read from your links though suggests the large crowd had been there repeatedly with the same purpose of getting the gallery/HQ shutdown. Seems awful likely to me guy with sign was then standing outside said gallery and all the more aught have the right to stand near it with a simple sign, without being dismissed as the one ‘invading’ or stealing the protestors platform. To be honest most of the discussion about giving or blocking platforms reeks to me of just renaming stuff so folks can duck the well worn arguments in support of free speech.

So, you think, with no training, no equipment, no pay, and no oversight, I should become an armed vigilante, a punisher, and that somehow addresses police corruption? What?
Edit: I already do that when reasonable....when I see something I DO something. Where I live we have highway patrol and that's it. They don't show up when people are reported detonating huge explosives or shooting their guns rapid fire in the neighborhood, so I and others must investigate ourselves.

Police don't do those kinds of studies, why should I? They don't address corruption a bit.

Why?

Not a bit motivated to do meaningless busy work at your whim.
You do a study, it has nothing to do with solving police corruption and abuse, why would I?

Since it's your field, how about you do a study on how often police are given a pass on felonies that would put anyone else in prison. Then do another showing how often they get away with crimes that would cost anyone else their net worth. Then do one examining what happens to cops that turn in criminal cops. Then do a study about what happens to cops that threaten other cops off the force. Have your studies verified, repeated, and published, then if you aren't in prison on trumped up charges I'll give you that atta boy you didn't offer me before explaining what a waste of time that was.

Not a bit sure what your point could be. Cops do some needed work, so give all their crimes and abuses a pass?
What are you saying? Nothing rational or helpful that I discern.

Sounds like ' You need farmers to feed us all, so let them use deadly poisons and sell deadly, contaminated, even fake food without repercussions, or consider the implications of having no farmers.' Deep.....to a gnat.

Not sure how he's a trigger happy vigilante...do shovels have triggers now?

It's worth mentioning this is likely scripted, and not real. A real defendant would be insane to volunteer that race was such a factor, or that he attacked a kid with a weapon from behind.
Googling their names, or neighborhood watch attack with shovel turns up nothing. Seems like this would have been big news if it happened.
Color me suspicious.

I can appreciate your concern. I went by the description of the video and the title. I can't be certain beyond that.

It is fairly well known that child molesters are not going to have a easy stay in incarceration, at least here in the USA. Vigilante justice happens to them frequently unless they request protective custody, which I understand many do.

There is no evidence whatsoever that he lived again, and barely anecdotal evidence that his body went missing.
You vastly overestimate the theories acceptance outside devout religious theological scholars.
It's not all nonsense, just the magic parts.

History. Constantine converted and compiled the bible to consolidate and grow his political powers.

Satan wrote and fulfilled the bible and prophecies to trick you, just like every other religion. See how that falls apart?

Verified "truth" is a fact demonstrable in the physical world.
I don't buy into isms.

No, they were clearly instructions to individuals, not government...please. Even accepting your view, it's still killing, so no one could carry out the governmental stoning imperative...catch 22, you defy god either way.

But, since I don't believe, I don't accept or reject him.

Ahhh, so he didn't die for the world, only his supporters, you say, with non supporters (mostly tricked thorough no fault of their own) getting eternal torture. Diabolical, monstrous in fact.

Only like cancer that only exists when you believe it does.

I do those things for myself, it's working fine and I take responsibility for myself. I would suggest if Jesus worked as you say, to perfection, no Christian would ever be depressed or do wrong, they would be perfect people without problems....1)what about when you/they don't behave perfectly, is Jesus busy?

If there was zero law enforcement on earth and no vigilantes, it would be like that.

A sign, like the cardboard sign the driver's holding? Yep.

I might get in the car out of curiosity, but wouldn't just accept that coincidence or mental implantation means divinity. I would think it's likely I'm being visited by ET, who would be easily mistaken for gods by believers.

2)Again, I must ask, if you know he has that power of personal revelation, but chose to not use it, why would you defy your own God's wishes to try to convert others? Maybe he needs us heathens to be heathens.

We don't stand for that kind of crap up here in Canada...

Jokes aside, we make exceptions to free speech and hate speech is something you CAN be prosecuted for. A teacher that was trying to teach holocaust denial was convicted for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada

My 2 cents, punching a nazi is more wrong because of the vigilante aspect of it than in an absolute moral sense. IMO the state should have laws about support for or membership with known criminal, terrorist or hate groups. Nazi's and KKK for starters, Westboro baptists and Saudi Wahabiism too depending on where society wants to draw the line. Morally though, I have no problems with declaring that debating merits of fascism and even mistreatment of Nazi germany historically is free speech and protected, but at the same time wearing a swastika on your arm or a pillow case on your head while marching in the streets to support your 'cause' should see you convicted and sentenced.

@ChaosEngine

i am trying to unpack your comment.

so you AGREE that attacking people you disagree with ideologically is wrong,but only if they are not self-identified nazis?

because 90 years ago these guys kinda cornered the market in nazism? and well..we don't wanna see a repeat of THAT now do we? so let's punch them in the face....

and that somehow punching them in the face will somehow magically halt any further encroachment of those dirty nazis!!!!

because it was so effective in the 1930's?

ok..how about this...

how about we daydream about cockpunching these knuckleheads,because it brings a smile to our faces but NOT actually punch them?

instead...we allow these cunts..who came to this gig LOOKING for a fight..to bluster and foam at the mouth.to spew their vile and vulgar message of racism dressed up as nationalistic pride,so EVERYONE can see.

and i bet you dollars to donuts one of them knuckledragging retards,who came all gussied up for a rumble...is gonna make a mistake...that inbreeder is gonna just HAVE to use his home made mace,or his shiny new gopher poker on someone...

probably one of dem darn "libtards".

and in this age of cell phone vigilantism,this is gonna get caught on video,posted to youtube and KABOOM!

white nationalist racist nazi party is forced back underground.

because you CANNOT fight fascism with a different flavor of fascism.

fascism is fascism yo,just because one flavor may taste better to your buds don't change that very simple truth.

the problem in this setting is you have TWO groups who are addicted to identity politics,and BOTH are convinced of their own righteousness,and BOTH groups suffer from a horrid case of groupthink.

and this ideological stand has them both certain of their righteousness,and this gives them a moral certitude that violence is an acceptable answer.

because they are the righteous.

sound familiar?

you mentioned 100 years ago,
i will match your 100 years and counter with the previous 5,000.

ideology homie..
the cancer of the deluded.
just ask any fundamentalist christian,or muslim,or jew.....

they will be perfectly happy to tell you how RIGHT they are,and how WRONG you are.

and this shit?
^ this psycho shit?
this is just a puss pocket,erupting from the internal corruption feeding on my countries soul.

economic collapse ain't gonna bring my country down.
nope..
it is gonna be the polarized politics that finally takes this country out.

i hate this..i seriously hate this...

I'm not sure anybody deserves a bunch of hate from internet vigilantes for a relatively minor fuck up.

It might be srs bsns, but it aint rly OUR srs bsns is it.

Why are correctional facilities so DUMB? I know it's not right to steal and I've never had a problem with theft myself, but damn I don't agree that he even "stole" the train -- if he was stealing he would have the train off the rails.

No, he provides a service, even if it's a vigilante train service. I'm not saying it's right what he does but certainly law enforcement's response and punishment is WRONG. This shouldn't even be considered theft, it should be under a different categorization.

Traditional responses to human behavior are simply incorrect and unscientific, so despite the law, justice is not served. They're taking advantage of an autistic person -- and they profit from his behavior.

Law enforcement and corrections in America need an overhaul.