Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "Colion Noir" channel.

 @benanders4412 Since it was blacked out, I will not say more than I am concerned over three shots; that said I saw nothing that shows the second and third round weren't justified.
20
@bassmaster7942 I agree, emptying a magazine into a person in cold blood after the individual is down or surrendered is wrong; unfortunately, it happens sometimes when a person's adrenaline is high. People on training ranges sometimes can't tell how many rounds they have fired, so I can't automatically say the number of rounds fired is an automatic indicator of intent. That is why I won't condemn the shooter in this case, the evidence, that is there so far, indicates self-defense, it remains to be seen what is in the blacked out section. As to the comment that you mentioned, it is the type that I despise. That type of comment only gives support to the anti-2nd Amendment crowd by making people legitimately concerned over self and others defense a Black eye, and doesn't represent the vast majority of those who believe that westbound have the right to defend ourselves and others. I think that you can agree with that.
10
Sorry, while Chicago and Cook County make it difficult, citizens can get concealed carry permits. I do agree that many won't get it. The permit can be denied for drug and alcohol charges and current/past gang affiliation. Remember not all you do as a juvenile goes away when you reach adulthood.
5
@bassmaster7942 The jury or the judge? What did the prosecutor recommend? A number of questions exist depending on the state and its laws, it is not cut and dry. Here in Chicago in 2022; Kim Fox, states attorney, pressed no charges on any member of two street gangs that held a gun battle in broad daylight with bystanders in the area. The shooters were armed with pistols (all illegal). She said notaries because it was mutually agreed upon combat. Yes, I know this wasn't a jury trial, but given that example what she have recommended in the case you described. I suspect you won't even see action that hard. By the way, foster homes vary greatly. My family moved from a changing neighborhood while I was in college, one of the reasons that they moved was finding two foster children buried in a crawl space under the foster parents home. The parents had moved from Chicago to our suburb shortly before. Mistreatment and neglect can happen there just as easily. A better question is why people like those in your example have children. Perhaps for the money given for each child to the poor. Perhaps. Substance abuse has destroyed their judgement. Each case is different.
3
@therogue3463 The speculation was on the penalties involved and who actually decided on what to do. Yes on the parents I have an opinion, and it has to do with conduct. Even pet shelters do some vetting here; but no one gets potential parents for suitability. In years gone by, I feel that there was more parenting, but that has drastically been reduced as well as an increase in being self centered. I had a student when I was teaching high school for a few years who at the age of 15 couldn't wait to be pregnant because she could do a better job of being a Mother. A child having a child how well was that going 5o work when she wanted to go out for fun, or find a husband. She had no real idea of life, she only wanted someone to father the child and she expected the state to provide her money and daycare while she attended school, God help the child she intended to have.
3
@bassmaster7942 He can't because it says nothing about that. It is Federal and state criminal laws or codes.
2
@johnmullholand2044 if you notice, I said shoot center mass, unless your some sort of expert marksman (I guess marksperson would be politically correct),, shooting anywhere else won 't stop them. You never shoot to kill, only to stop, and if they die that is their hard luck for a bad decision. Remember you are responsible for where every bullet you fire goes, make sure it is the center of the body mass where it is less like to cause collateral damage. Remember if you post that you would like to kill a shooter, liberal DAS and can twist that into charges. If a shooter services being stopped, don't finish him off, it is for the courts. As to the list, I stated when I felt the death penalty should apply. Mass shooters need to be stopped, and death should be the penalty if they survive to be charged. Murder in commission of a crime deserves the same, again via the courts if possible. Other forms of homicide do require more consideration of the motive and event. A person who intentional planned to kill some one and did it, deserves death; since these usually require deceive work, they should face a trial. Negligent homicide.deserve punishment other than death; and finally accidental deaths may or may not need to be punished depending on the incident. People who kill someone to prevent a violent crime, murder or severe injury (I consider that to include forcible rape), should not face any charge as long as they did not kill the offender after they were no longer endanger the individual or others. Those are pretty much the rules in most states; however you need o know the local written and unwritten laws since DAS more interested in a criminals rights than the public can still hurt you.
2
Already a law, but we need to revisit when and what constitutes adult crime.
2
Time to replace Senators too old to be in office. Remember she is from. California where with some of the strongest anti-firearms laws that has m some of the largest and most frequent mass shootings.
1
President Biden seems unable to process real time information; ot he or his people li3.
1
Sorry, this man most be nuts. It wasn't just the rich who had had guns. Most frontier people (te poorest) usually didn't have them; however, the closer to the populated coasts saw increased hand guns. The environmental situation was different there.
1
He is describing it as an assault pistol. Despite the laws in California they have two mass murders in the last couple of weeks. High capacity magazines are banned, but the killer used one. So a criminal under state law committed more severe crime. My sympathy is to the victims and their families; I have no use for the anti-2nd people or their deluded logic.
1
Tax guns and ammunition out of the public's reach, add micro stamping on pistols which isn't available, and the biggest lie is that guns kill the most children, it is DRUGS!!
1
@sootuckchoong7077 No, progressive/socialist destabilization of the nation. Make things so bad that people will give up freedom for supposed safety. Taking away the 2nd Amendment is a tool in that toolbox.
1
@bassmaster7942 Grabbing for a firearm is different than grabbing for you. That should be and is a definite threat; especially grabbing you from behind; it gives you every reason to fear for you life. As I said earlier, I am concerned over three shots; however since the video is blacked out, I can only say there is nothing shown that indicates she improperly shot him. So until then, I will defend her right to defend herself. There is a sarcastic phony award called the Darwin Award for improving the gene pool by removing yourself permanently by doing something dumb. That man was at least a candidate; while his family may miss him, I think society shouldn't. Also, I would like to see if he has a record. People that old who assault people usually have a record of at least assaults if not more violent crimes.
1
@bassmaster7942 That is the problem when you shoot multiple times, it is a crazy shoot if your version is believed unless your lucky enough to have been videoed by a nearby video camera.
1
@therogue3463 I can't agree with your comment. You make your condemnation too broad.
1
@therogue3463 Read what I said, I said in my opinion nothing provided so far says it was unjustified; however I can't say for sure since I couldn't see the entire video due to the Black Out. If you have an entire video of the incident frequently you can make a valid judgement. Remember the recent shooting in Texas where the dinner shot a robber. It shows him walking up after the man appeared to be very do n e video and shooting him. The problem is that the surveillance camera doesn't show the downed man. Could he have reached for the supposed gun which would have justified bthe last shot, or was the shot unnecessaey. The video here does not show the final event; so was it murder murder or justified. Here, i won't come down on on either side. Now it comes to witnesses a d the balance of testimony. I had Article 15 authority and sat on Court-martial Boards, and that can end hard to decide.
1
@bassmaster7942 I'm generally more supportive of the jury system if both sides selecting them are ethical and fair a distinct issue today.
1
@therogue3463 We probably agree on the parenting to a large degree, not all parents raised children who have become useless parents; however that number steadily increases. The parents in your example seem to represent that issue.
1
Doom Guy if the man is a threat, you have every right to stop the threat; and your a fool if you don't shoot center mass. Once the threat is down or surrendered, you can and will probably held responsible; that the state of current law. Do mass shooters deserve death; YES, but through the courts. Do people who kill others while committing a crime deserve death, again yes. Beyond that we need to evaluate if it was a planned act, crime of passion, or accident to determine the penalty; but there should be one.
1
@TheTonyEd If you are talking about some Islamic countries, I believe it takes three male witnesses to prove rape. I don't know about the execution part, unless adultery is involed.
1
@Kawanaka What does this have to do with assaults or shootings?
1
@waynemcleod6767 ?????
1
@CarlValiquette If you go back to one of my initial comments, you will find that I could not state that it was a clean shot because of blackout of that part of the video. I did say that the evidence available seemed to support that 8t was a clean shoot.
1
@Jellybeansatdusk If in fact he was still holding her, to me, it was a good shoot. I'll take your word on the video.
1
@Jellybeansatdusk You misunderstood my last post. The final sentence stated meant that I would take your word without looking; people normally don't reference nonexistent videos, too easy to disprove the comment.
1
I agree that Mr. Baldwin does deserve this. Negligence was clearly involved. He has lied about out the event.
1
😅Former President Obama truly loves the Constitution, NOT.
1
Another thing to realize that if a legislature can violate the Constitution and its amendments could refuse to follow other amendments. A gross example is if a state legislature decides the 13th and 14th Amendments, would you support that? I won't.
1
How will this increase safety? I don't see it reasonably safer.
1
If this guy actually believes the common people didn't have firearms, he is uneducated or a liar.
1
Besides the intent of the Constitution; the reality was that private arms frequently were more cutting edge than those of the US Government. Captured Ferguson breech loading rifles stayed in private arms long after the Revolutionary War. Most backwoods men and frontier dwellers continued to use rifled muskets while the Government continued to arm the army with smooth bore muskets. Percussion cap muskets and minnie ball (actually conical projectiles which expanded to take riflings) were in civilian use before the US military. As late as the Civil War the Union still used some smooth one muskets; while several workable breechloaders and early cartridge firing rifles existed (few in troops hands). Early magazine fed arms started showing up in the military but were dropped soon after the war with singles hot breech loaders replacing them. While the US military continued with single shoot breech loaders until the 1890s, magazine feed repeaters were in widespread civilian use. The first semiautomatic rifles were civilian. Submachine guns were commonly available until the early 1930s; when they were largely banned because a few got widespread publicity because of criminal use. Then as now, appearing to do something was more important than doing something. The difference was that law enforcement was told to end those gangs one way or another; Ma Bsrker's gang, Baby Face Nelson, Dillenger to name a few were either killed or surrendered, and no tears were shed over the deaths; and they killed far fewer than today's drug gangs. The point is that at no point in history until the 1930s was it considered wrong for the public to own weapons as modern or more modern than those of the police or army. That is the true enforcement of the 2nd Amendment. Oh, by the way. In New York, the original motivational firearms laws was to disarm the opponent party's poll watchers of firearms while keeping Tammany Hall's armed, I will let you check out who Tammany Hall represented one hint it wasn't Republicans.
1
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. They keep ratcheting up gun control and they keep having these massacres.
1
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment didn't stop someone from having the current military arms, including some early breech-loaders. Civilians consistently bought, possessed, and used the same or better weapons as the military. Wide spread use of rifled weapons was in the civilian population before the military. The use of percussion caps that the weapon more effective were in the civilian world as fast as the military world. Multiple shot revolvers were common in the civilian world in the US first. The same with magazine feed rifles. I could continue but won't. My point is that just because the mayor doesn't like it, the 2nd Amendment actually acknowledged the right of people to own whatever arms they desired.
1
Time to work for the removal from office of any individual who supports this bill. These people have violated their oath of office to support both the US Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution, one has the 2nd Amendment and the other says it supports the 2nd Amendment. Is intentional action to violate our civil rights, which include the 2nd Amendment, at least impeachable or recallable act?
1
There is something else those states have un common, they have Supreme Court has a lready said these firearms and magazines are legal.
1
Rep. Swelwell the perfect man to make policy for the US. He lied about the Russian Hoax, had a Lover who was a spy for communist China (strangely she was warned before arrest, and has lied about many things beyond. Yes, with that background, we really should trust him. If you believe this, I suggest that you should be banned from voting due to ignorance.
1
committed. Der Furher Pritzker does not control the sheriffs or local police.
1
Open carry may be desirable in rural areas. In congested areas, it is too easy to have someone trying to take. Yes, you have to control the firearm.
1
A 15 year old can not buy the weapons that they found. Most were stolen. So, how gun control would work when the person was no compulsion against breaking the law in other areas.
1
Question, if he was discharged for mental issues how did he get approved for security work or firearms purchase.
1
As horrible these two attacks are; these are mass casualty murders as bad or worse as fire arm attacks. The other attack was a hand held weapons. This wasn't the first time where mass stabbing or are attacks. The weapon whether a car, hand held non-firearm, or firearm is meaningless. The killers are.
1
My only concern is three shots. Other than that concern; this man did attack her. If he grabbed for the firearm, than the first shoot at least was justified, if he continued after the first than the second shot was justified, if he still continued beyond the second shot, than the third was justified. What was shown didn't provide a clear picture of the event, since the actual struggle was blacked out. This platform needs to allow the information needed for a good decision.
1