Comments by "Cinderball" (@cinderball1135) on "New Details on the Fatal Shooting of Protester Garrett Foster | NowThis" video.

@kennethmory1803 Yes, let's move the goalposts a bit. I'm sure nobody will notice.
21
@DoctorTerrible Or, and I'm going to really push the boat out here - maybe you don't see the problem with white supremacists being given preferential treatment?
19
@DoctorTerrible What she said is that white supremacists seem to be getting preferential treatment from the cops - which plainly they are - see how the police bend over themselves to make excuses for the shooter. So either you ran your mouth without understanding anything about the situation, or you approve of white supremacists being given preferential treatment versus Black Lives Matter protestors.
16
@DoctorTerrible I'm seeing lots of people claiming that Garrett shot the car, but I haven't seen any of the evidence. I believe this is where the cool kids say "link, or GTFO".
16
So the police speculate, clearly without evidence, that Foster "may have pointed his gun at the vehicle", and then casually suggest that he was out looking for a confrontation, insinuating gently that it was the victim's fault he got shot three times? I'm so glad I don't live in America - they're little better than a Colombian drug cartel...
16
@kennethmory1803 The assertion is that it's okay to be armed at a protestor. You have now added the extra requirement that the protest cannot block traffic or surround cars - a provision that you have chosen specifically because you've seen videos of those behaviours happening at a BLM protest. This is a classic example of "moving the goalposts", as it's understood in debating circles.
14
@DoctorTerrible Isabel said that only white supremacists appear to be protected by the Second Amendment, judging by enforcement standards. You are suggesting she called every gun owner a white supremacist? What?
12
@isabelayala6763 And if you notice, we're now at the stage of the conversation where the white supremacist apologists start strategically deleting their comments to cover their tracks, and also to try and make us look silly. So dumb.
12
@kennethmory1803 Steady on there future domestic terrorist...
12
@chrishandsome4267 Perhaps instead of gesticulating, you delightful people could actually link the video you're referring to. Otherwise, how is this a reasonable discussion? I mean, either you've seen it and you can link it for me - or you also haven't seen it.
7
@chrishandsome4267 I'm confused. Who's disputing the fact a shooting took place? EDIT: It's apparent that H here isn't even referring to THIS video. He's referring to some other video that he assumes I've seen, even though he and other commenters who claim to know about it, can't link to it. YouTube logic at its finest.
6
@kimbee7267 Oh? I haven't seen it. Can you link?
6
John Smith If you're going to quote a video as evidence, it's probably a good idea to watch the sodding video first, just to be sure it actually exists.
1
John Smith Pray tell then - how did you watch the video? And how do you suggest I should go about finding it, if you can't link it?
1
John Smith First, no, asking you to provide links to your sources is fairly standard for this kind of discussion online, as I'm sure a big grown-up boy like you knows perfectly well. Second, wow, those sources stink to high heaven. Your source that says the victim shot first is a pro-gun outfit pushing for concealed carry? Rofl.
1
John Smith Your posts aren't even making sense any more, so I think I'll leave the conversation here.
1
@worm413 First we're told there's video of this violent leftist threatening the driver and even shooting at him - trust us. Then we're told that actually it doesn't matter anyway, because the "mob" was "violent", even though there's actual, genuine video (on this very page!) showing the crowd was peaceful until the shooter drove his car into it at high speed. Keep reaching like this and you'll dislocate your entire skeleton!
1