FINALLY, someone steps up, defends a monument, and guns down Democrat terrorists

The KKK was founded and funded by southern Democrats. That is historical fact.

WASHINGTON — Facebook on Thursday removed advertisements posted on its platform by the Trump campaign that prominently featured a symbol used by Nazis to classify political prisoners during World War II, saying the imagery violated company policy. NYT

This is a today fact. ^^^
 
WASHINGTON — Facebook on Thursday removed advertisements posted on its platform by the Trump campaign that prominently featured a symbol used by Nazis to classify political prisoners during World War II, saying the imagery violated company policy. NYT

This is a today fact. ^^^

Which has zero to do with Democrats started and funded the KKK. You fail.
 
The guy was defending himself. The shooting was justified.

The person he shot had not touched the shooter, so at best it was mistaken self defense. The next question is why had the original fight happened. If the shooter had instigated the fight, he has no right to self defense at all.

There is preliminary evidence that Baca was attacking people before the shooting, so he may be in a lot of trouble here.
 
The guy was defending himself. The shooting was justified.

If you rob a bank, there is a great danger that you will be attacked. So in a sense, anyone you shoot while robbing that bank is self defense, but it is not justified.

Baca shot someone who had not touched him, so the best he could do is mistaken self defense (not even self defense). That might be good enough, but given that he had physically attacked people all day, it might not be good enough. He could not just run around attacking people, and then saying he feared for his life because he was a terrorist.
 
Onate cut the feet off captured natives.

With many of these people, the defense is that they were just following the morality of the time. Onate was considered a criminal in his own time. He was more brutal than the Spanish would allow.

One has to wonder why white people in New Mexico would want a statue of a Spanish criminal. Is it a threat to Hispanics?
 
The video clearly shows he was in fear of his life. It is a justified shooting.

Someone breaks into your house, they would be very reasonable to be in fear of their lives. You may kill them. So does that mean that anyone who breaks into your house can justifiably kill you?

Baca is known to have attacked people. If this is another case of him attacking people, then he can both be in fear of his life, and the shooting can be murder.
 
Concat is a worthless PC poser - anyone defending an ATTACK on someone in the streets is also an enabler

For all we know, the man who ran up was going to just try to break up the fight. He was shot before he could do any action.

We do not know who the attacker was in this fight, but we do know that Baca had spent all day attacking people. He would run up, hit someone, and run away. If this time he got more tangled into the fight, then everyone else was defending themselves.
 
Once again, all misdemeanors.

Good luck in getting aggravated battery with an illegal weapon dropped down to a misdemeanor. He is looking at a few years in prison. AND THAT IS BEFORE THE SHOOTING!!!

The fact remains he spent all day attacking people. He has been caught for that. He is going to prison.
 
There is no charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Learn to read wimp. Oh, and grow some balls.

There is one charge of aggravated batter with a deadly weapon, two charges of battery, and one charge of carrying a concealed weapon without a license in the commission of a felony. He is spending years in prison.

And they are continuing to find more videos of him attacking people, so there will be more battery charges. We live in the age of video taking cell phones, and he has peaked people's interest.

The question is how many people is he allowed to attack before they are allowed to defend themselves?
 
Irrelevant to the shooting. The guy was defending himself. The shooting was justified.

The fact he was attacking people all day is irrelevant to the shooting? It is very relevant to the question over whether he had attacked someone again. If he attacked someone, he cannot say he feared that the guy might defend himself, so the shooting was justified.
 
Back
Top