Blaze Reporter Threatened With A Gun A By Rioter In Wisconsin

[ConstitutionCowboy]

See it here.

That's the moment I would drop my camera and drop the idiot with one or two right between the eyes. As long as these raging militants get away with this sort of thing, it won't be long before they start believing they can start murdering with impunity. If that wasn't a situation with a reasonable fear of life or great bodily harm, there never ever was one or ever will be one.

That idiot should be dead. But since he survived his deadly threat, he needs to spend 40 or 50 years in a harsh prison.

Woody

[Brad Johnson]

I'm afraid it's going to get to a point (if it hasn't already) where people start shooting in prevention of presumed threat rather than in reaction to an actual one. Moments like the one CC linked will pay a big part in making it happen. The part of me that's sick and tired of the lawless BS being tolerated in some places will cheer, but I can't let that be acceptable, either personally or socially. I don't know what the answer is, or if there is even a good one at this point. I suppose all I can realistically do is take reasonable steps towards making sure my family is sufficiently protected should a threat present itself.

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

"HOLY SH*#: while interviewing this #BLM rioter in Kinosha [sic] he pulls out a real pistol and points it at my camera while explaining what we would do to cops if they rolled up on us right now," Schaffer wrote on Twitter.

I wonder if the protester dweeb understands that all he's accomplishing with such idiotic statements is making it more likely that, when they finally respond, the police will be more likely to open fire at the slightest hint of provocation.

[bedlamite]

I'm afraid it's going to get to a point (if it hasn't already) where people start shooting in prevention of presumed threat rather than in reaction to an actual one. Moments like the one CC linked will pay a big part in making it happen. The part of me that's sick and tire of the lawless BS being tolerated in some places will cheer, but I can't let that be acceptable, either personally or socially. I don't know what the answer is, or if there is even a good one at this point. I suppose all I can realistically do is take reasonable steps towards making sure my family is sufficiently protected should a threat present itself.

Brad

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/pennsylvania/articles/2020-08-25/marchers-going-to-dc-for-mlk-event-shot-at-in-pennsylvania

[dogmush]

So it seems clear from the article that the pistoleer wasn't actually threatening the reporter, and the reporter understood that.

So while it's reprehensible gun handling and definitely needs to be corrected,  I fail to see an actual credible threat to justify shooting the guy.

[TommyGunn]

So it seems clear from the article that the pistoleer wasn't actually threatening the reporter, and the reporter understood that.

So while it's reprehensible gun handling and definitely needs to be corrected,  I fail to see an actual credible threat to justify shooting the guy.

I was listening to Glenn Beck this morning;  he had the reporter on his show (I'm assuming it is the same reporter this article mentions as I haven't heard of two such incidents)  and according to what was said on the show, the reporter absolutly did not know the gun was either empty or going to jam. 
I think the threat was very credible.   You just DO NOT  point guns at people "to make a point."   
It's "assault with a deadly weapon" for a reason.

[zxcvbob]

So it seems clear from the article that the pistoleer wasn't actually threatening the reporter, and the reporter understood that.

So while it's reprehensible gun handling and definitely needs to be corrected,  I fail to see an actual credible threat to justify shooting the guy.

I must have missed something.  But it made me think of this:  I've often thought TV news stations covering certain types of stories should hire longshoremen or Teamsters to be cameramen, with instructions that if a cop grabs your camera that's an illegal assault and you immediately put him down *hard*;  the station will spare no expense to defend you. (try not to kill him in the process, but don't try too hard)  I think the same principal applies to these BLM aholes but more-so -- you get extra points if you break his neck.

[MillCreek]

^^^The station sparing no expense to defend the Teamster/cameraman will not do him much good when the cameraman is shot by the police for assaulting an officer. 

[Pb]

So it seems clear from the article that the pistoleer wasn't actually threatening the reporter, and the reporter understood that.

So while it's reprehensible gun handling and definitely needs to be corrected,  I fail to see an actual credible threat to justify shooting the guy.

Someone was holding that camera.  Point a gun at the camera is pointing the gun at a person.  That is a threat, dogmush. 

[dogmush]

I've been cleaning weapons with a bunch of soldiers when one was stupid and pointed an M16 at me.  Should I have shot him?

[Brad Johnson]

I've been cleaning weapons with a bunch of soldiers when one was stupid and pointed an M16 at me.  Should I have shot him?

Being muzzle-swept due to an inattentive operator and having a gun intentionally pointed at your face are entirely different scenarios.

Brad

[TommyGunn]

I've been cleaning weapons with a bunch of soldiers when one was stupid and pointed an M16 at me.  Should I have shot him?

Really?     You describe a very different situation.    

Ralph Waldo Emerson stated in his essay SELF RELIANCE, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines."

[Pb]

Being muzzle-swept due to an inattentive operator and having a gun intentionally pointed at your face are entirely different scenarios.

Brad

Yup.

[dogmush]

I didn't say muzzle swept, I said pointed at me.  As in "This is what we're going to do to those hadjis!! Pew. Pew."  I apologize for not telling an entire war story to make a point, but I had hoped that someone would answer the question instead of leaping to conclusions.

I have had guns pointed at me in very similar situations to this.  Should I have shot the idiot E3?


ETA:

It's crystal clear from the article the reporter was not being threatened,  Thug was saying "If the cops come at us ima pull my gat and pow pow".  I am not justifying that behavior, and I would ABSOLUTLY duck and yell at the ahole not to point guns at me, but you guys want to shoot him when he was clearly, and one assumes on film, NOT threatening the reporter.  That's not a justifiable shooting.

[MechAg94]

I must have missed something.  But it made me think of this:  I've often thought TV news stations covering certain types of stories should hire longshoremen or Teamsters to be cameramen, with instructions that if a cop grabs your camera that's an illegal assault and you immediately put him down *hard*;  the station will spare no expense to defend you. (try not to kill him in the process, but don't try too hard)  I think the same principal applies to these BLM aholes but more-so -- you get extra points if you break his neck.

News stations and professional journalists generally have cameras with zoom so they don't try to put a camera in the face of the cops.  It is usually the wannabe journalists who try to put a camera in a cop's face provoking the cops to force them to back off or arrest them.  Using tough camera men to go after idiots with guns is another thing all together.  

Who makes more per hour?  Cameramen or longshoremen/teamsters?

[MechAg94]

I didn't say muzzle swept, I said pointed at me.  As in "This is what we're going to do to those hadjis!! Pew. Pew."  I apologize for not telling an entire war story to make a point, but I had hoped that someone would answer the question instead of leaping to conclusions.

I have had guns pointed at me in very similar situations to this.  Should I have shot the idiot E3?


ETA:

It's crystal clear from the article the reporter was not being threatened,  Thug was saying "If the cops come at us ima pull my gat and pow pow".  I am not justifying that behavior, and I would ABSOLUTLY duck and yell at the ahole not to point guns at me, but you guys want to shoot him when he was clearly, and one assumes on film, NOT threatening the reporter.  That's not a justifiable shooting.

I thought the guy was playing to the camera, but it was a still not at all safe. 

https://youtu.be/HOdq6RhGrXQ?t=100
Here is a section of the Stephen Crowder show with that.

[zxcvbob]

News stations and professional journalists generally have cameras with zoom so they don't try to put a camera in the face of the cops.  It is usually the wannabe journalists who try to put a camera in a cop's face provoking the cops to force them to back off or arrest them.  Using tough camera men to go after idiots with guns is another thing all together.  

Who makes more per hour?  Cameramen or longshoremen/teamsters?

I'm talking about where a reporter is on a public sidewalk reporting on something the city doesnt want covered (I can't think of an example right now; I'll try to find one) and a cop bullies them to leave, usually saying they are trespassing, and then grabs the camera.  That cop in the moment needs a broken arm or worse.  News stations know when they are covering an unpopular story and should protect their journalists from assault.

[TommyGunn]

I didn't say muzzle swept, I said pointed at me.  As in "This is what we're going to do to those hadjis!! Pew. Pew."  I apologize for not telling an entire war story to make a point, but I had hoped that someone would answer the question instead of leaping to conclusions.

I have had guns pointed at me in very similar situations to this.  Should I have shot the idiot E3?


ETA:

It's crystal clear from the article the reporter was not being threatened,  Thug was saying "If the cops come at us ima pull my gat and pow pow".  I am not justifying that behavior, and I would ABSOLUTLY duck and yell at the ahole not to point guns at me, but you guys want to shoot him when he was clearly, and one assumes on film, NOT threatening the reporter.  That's not a justifiable shooting.

In that case what he did was very stupid and  should have been reported to the C. O.   I don't think you should have shot him. 

I vehemently disagree that it is "crystal clear from the article the reporter was not being threatened."    A gun being used that way IS A THREAT.   Anyone who is dumb enough to do that is dumb enough to believe a loaded weapon is "unloaded" or otherwise  innocuous and kill through the stoopidz. 

I'm not sure I'd shoot him as I cannot be certain I'd be in a position to.  If I heard of a riot at 325 Maple Street that is the one place I WOULD NOT BE. 
If I was armed and somehow at such a scene and had the chance,  a guy bringing a gun to bear on me would be shot before he completed the sentence you attribute to this mymidon. 
In real life good guys do not always walk off into the sunset.  Sometimes they die before the sun sets.
Which is why I choose to be elsewhere.

[MechAg94]

I'm talking about where a reporter is on a public sidewalk reporting on something the city doesnt want covered (I can't think of an example right now; I'll try to find one) and a cop bullies them to leave, usually saying they are trespassing, and then grabs the camera.  That cop in the moment needs a broken arm or worse.  News stations know when they are covering an unpopular story and should protect their journalists from assault.

I don't know how common that is.  However, planning to assault cops could land a lot more than just the cameraman in jail or even 6 feet under.  Either way, you are planning to assault someone not for threatening you, but for telling you to take video somewhere else.  That doesn't add up to me.

[Pb]

Tommy Gunn is right.

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LHTrFsSLZA

Slo mo version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vc6y7BrujA

[zxcvbob]

I don't know how common that is.  However, planning to assault cops could land a lot more than just the cameraman in jail or even 6 feet under.  Either way, you are planning to assault someone not for threatening you, but for telling you to take video somewhere else.  That doesn't add up to me.

It's not common, and now I can't find the incidents I'm talking about because of so many times police have harassed people with cameras (some with good reason) in the past few years.  I just remember a video about a case a few years ago and thinking when the cop laid hands on the cameraman he should have immediately regretted that decision.  Beyond that, it was mostly just a fantasy.  When real justice is impossible, street justice is back on the table.  I will keep looking for an example but I don't think I'll find one.