LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Dill]

(07-21-2020, 10:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's what happened based on available facts.

CHOP self described "warlord" issues firearms to "security force".

Security force patrols CHOP openly carrying rifles (which I believe is illegal in WA)

Reports of shots fired from a silver SUV, later amended to white Jeep. 

CHOP "security" actively hunts down said Jeep.

CHOP "security" riddles Jeep with bullets, killing one occupant.  

Clear audio recording of the incident reveals statement made after initial flurry of gunfire, "Oh, you're still alive",  then a several second pause and a final gunshot is heard.

Police arrive to investigate and find that the scene had been "heavily tampered with".

When I actually see it written out like that, I wonder where the info about a "self described warlord" issuing firearms to a "security force" comes from.

Who reported "shots fired" and to whom? Why such aversion to sourcing such material facts, or acknowledging gaps in the record? 

"Shots fired" is still rather vague. Was someone shooting at the security force? Innocent passersby?

I am still asking where these facts are available.  Fred, Dino can you help?

(07-21-2020, 10:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Everything else is speculation.  Now, exactly like George Zimmerman, CHOP "security" created the scenario in which deadly force ended up being used.  So, regardless of whether you think the shooting itself was self defense or murder you cannot excuse, unless you wholeheartedly approve of vigilantism, the sequence of events that led up to the shooting.

I am fascinated by some of our far left members almost literally tripping over themselves to defend this blatant act of vigilantism while simultaneously raking law enforcement over the coals.  Peak clown world.

Please tell us again how you don't hate law enforcement, it rings hollower with every post you make.

Is the bolded then "speculation"? 

I don't approve of vigilantism wholeheartedly or even half-heartedly, by "security forces" or police. 

Even so, I think I can "excuse" a shooting, even a police shooting, if it was in self defense.

Why should the effort to collect and establish a factual record before rendering judgment be cast as "far left members . . . tripping over themselves to defend this blatant act of vigilantism"?  Why isn't the "professional LEO with investigative experience" helping to provide a sourced factual record rather than rushing to play judge and jury?