Poll of the Day > Can you use the word "victim" to describe...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...somebody who hits somebody else's Jeep with a baton, then gets threatened and shot at? Granted, that's obviously an excessive response in the eyes of the law, no doubt there, but is the media serious with this?...

Basically, some assholes at the Richard Spencer speech were leaving, other assholes hit their Jeep with a baton as they went past, and then the guys in the Jeep stopped and threatened the person who did it and fired a shot at them (which missed). They're being charged with attempted murder, IIRC. Both sides are guilty of something here, of that there is no question... Yet no charges for vandalism? Where it becomes murky is that the first party, who escalated things to violence, is being called "the victim" in this instance because of the overkill response used by the second party.

And therein lies the problem with the mainstream media... I mean, rather than saying "they're both at fault," the baton-wielder is framed as some innocent bystander. The article was from CBS News, which isn't the biggest shock imaginable, but it comes across as something Vox would present via their obnoxious little bearded imp in a video. You're not a neo-Nazi if you say "both sides were wrong, but one took it to the extreme." You are a terrible reporter if you spin it that the one who initiated the physical confrontation was somehow a victim of anything... Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought committing a crime wasn't automatically forgiven when the other person out-crimes you...

Found it: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-men-shouted-heil-hitler-before-firing-shot-after-white-nationalist-speech/

A report released Friday says one of the victims hit the Jeep's rear window with a baton. Police say the Jeep drove about 10 feet and stopped. The report says both Colton and William Fears threatened to kill the victims and told Tenbrink to shoot.

This media bias is why so many people feel emboldened to the point that they probably don't realize what they're doing is against the law at all, or they're swept up in some herd mentality craziness... Neo-Nazis suck, but they still have rights when what they're doing is still protected by the first amendment. Violence is honestly not the answer, and things will only get worse when one side is allowed to get away with it. Nobody should be.
---

I remember an event happened on our property which made the news. I was present for the real thing and then read two articles about it on the same day. Various things struck me. The first was that they were both obviously so hastily written it was ridiculous. So many things were just wrong, mispellings, wrong description of what happened, etc. The other was that one was written 100% neutral, just describing what happened, whereas the other one was spun to be as controversial as possible. "how could this happen", "what if it was worse", "who's to blame", etc.

so yeah, it was something they taught in geography of all things that strikes me as true. even something attempting to be unbiased will have *some* innevitable bias, and that's the best possible case. even something as simple as a photograph, decisions have to be made about exposure time, angle, lighting, etc.etc. and they will all play in to how the end result tends to be perceived. so even in the best case there's going to be small amounts of bias, and in the worst case, there will be a clear agenda that is trying to be spun.
---

^Yeah, it's true. Some bias is simply chalked up to human nature, but a blatant disregard for the law is insulting. Wouldn't hitting somebody's vehicle as it drove past be classified as assault under normal circumstances? Property damage/vandalism, maybe, but it's a bit of a gray area given that it was an attack first and foremost. If I hit a person I didn't like's vehicle with a baton and got shot at, I would not consider myself a victim. I'd consider myself lucky they missed and not do it again in the future.
---

If I was in that situation, I would have drawn the firearm and warned him to drop the baton and keep his hands in the air. If he complied, the police can handle it. If he approached me (or a loved one) aggressively with the baton or made a sudden movement towards his waistband or pocket, I would have fired.

MannerSaurus posted...

If I was in that situation, I would have drawn the firearm and warned him to drop the baton and keep his hands in the air. If he complied, the police can handle it. If he approached me (or a loved one) aggressively with the baton or made a sudden movement towards his waistband or pocket, I would have fired.

100% the right answer. +1
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

...somebody who hits somebody else's Jeep with a baton, then gets threatened and shot at? Granted, that's obviously an excessive response in the eyes of the law, no doubt there, but is the media serious with this?...

It's a little murky but yeah, there's certainly an element of bias there. In general, if you're being attacked, you're certainly within your rights to threaten with a legal weapon. However, if the person desists or surrenders, you're clearly in the wrong to shoot at them. Both participants should be charged with crimes, even though the shooter didn't initiate the violence.

And, if you're shooting in a public area with non-involved civilians around, reckless endangerment should be on the table.
---

Zeus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

...somebody who hits somebody else's Jeep with a baton, then gets threatened and shot at? Granted, that's obviously an excessive response in the eyes of the law, no doubt there, but is the media serious with this?...

It's a little murky but yeah, there's certainly an element of bias there. In general, if you're being attacked, you're certainly within your rights to threaten with a legal weapon. However, if the person desists or surrenders, you're clearly in the wrong to shoot at them. Both participants should be charged with crimes, even though the shooter didn't initiate the violence.

And, if you're shooting in a public area with non-involved civilians around, reckless endangerment should be on the table.

You are responsible for the bullet that is discharged, legally, even if fired in self defense. If it hit an innocent by stander then yes, you are responsible. But simply discharging a weapon when your life is in danger (hypothetically, not in this story) is not considered endangerment. Also, personally, I was taught to always know what's behind your target, as in, drop the ground and fire up if you have to (there are still risks involved in this, but it is better than going straight through, or missing in a direct line). Also, always carry hollowpoints. It isn't foolproof, and missed slugs still carry a lot of risk, but the impacted ones should do more damage to target and less penetration.