Armed militia member arrested, identified after man is shot at Albuquerque protest

[Permanent Waves]

Didn’t see a blade, but it was 3 on 1 and they were yelling “I’m gonna f***ing kill you!” Looks like a good shoot, but he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Rule #1 is to avoid situations like this.

Yeah may not have been a blade, go back to Admin’s post #46, pic maybe looks like a blade in attackers left hand, but Bladerunner’s post #49 says looks more like a garrote. Either way, they were looking to inflict a lot of damage. Most agreed on the need to avoid bad situations. Nothing good was going to happen getting into it with this mob.

 

[Skysoldier]

Talked to my friend today from APD. He basically said the shooter is f**ked! But he also said they will be charging the guy's that were attacking
him with assault. They are still reviewing all the videos, and trying to get more information.
He also reiterated that the Civil Guard is not a "Militia", and they had nothing to do with it, except to intervene after shots were fired. He is pretty
pissed with how the Mayor and Governor are trying to intervene with their work, and spreading lies to the press!

 

[Bladerunner]

I read a post on IG calling this a bad shoot. According to the post, as soon as he drew his weapon his assailants started running away, thus removing one of the three components (opportunity) necessary to justify deadly force. I disagree, because the Antifa douches were still carrying weapons, and still within a distance to present a lethal problem to Mr. Blue Shirt if they decided to rejoin the attack. Hopefully the grand jury agrees. Either way, I like that he employed Boarding House Rules.

Hell no that all happened way too fast. Plus the guy had a garrotte in his f***ing hands right as he is being shot.

The victim (blue shirt guy) had every right to shoot those attackers.

Again, the ANTIFA lead diet boy has a weapon in his hand:

 

[Bladerunner]

Here is another frame. Does that look like the guy is retreating, or does it look like he is about to try and strangle blue shirt dude?

QED

 

[kevin9]

I applied for a position in Albuquerque about 6 months ago. Am sorta glad now I didn't get it.

 

[180 GRAIN FMJ]

They don't really care about confederates and conquistadors. What they really want is Washington and Jefferson down and at this rate, they'll get it.

And once they get the founding fathers, then of course comes the "Constitution was created by racist slave owners", so it must be abolished.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

View: https://youtu.be/i8CwHvyFwWM


Now you don't have to choose between educating someone in the face or slicing white privilege to pieces. You can do both!

 

[Dadstoys]

Kill him , kill him , we're gonna f*cking kill you.
Bang, bang.
RUN!!!
Unless the guy gets some uber liberal judge who won't let them show that video plus the still with the dumbass with the knife, i can't see a jury convicting the guy.
Unless they let the D.A. hand picks the jury.
These days you never know.

 

[Picton]

You can't have a 1,000 or 10,000 year old statue without having a 100 or 400 yo one first. Preserving history is critical as legacy brings wisdom and appreciation of where we came from. These people are literally trying to replicate 1984. If you destroy history, you can control what people are taught.

I see what you're saying. But Cristopher Columbus will still be taught the same way regardless of whether his statue has a head, believe me.

I don't think that just because someone gets a statue put up, that makes him a valuable or memorable person. Sometimes, it just makes him a "first:" Juan de Onate was NM's first governor, so he gets a nifty statue. But he was also a despot so cruel that that cruellest regime of that time, the Spanish in the American Southwest, decided he was too cruel even for them.

A statue never just means one thing. In this case, it commemorates a man who was "the first governor of NM," sure, but he was also an absolute tyrant, who would have gladly taken the membership list of a website like this, tortured the details out of the owner, then hunted us down and cut off our right feet just to teach us a lesson. A heroic-looking statue without any kind of explanation of such a complicated legacy does nothing to deepen our understanding of history.

 

[xtry51]

I see what you're saying. But Cristopher Columbus will still be taught the same way regardless of whether his statue has a head, believe me.

I don't think that just because someone gets a statue put up, that makes him a valuable or memorable person. Sometimes, it just makes him a "first:" Juan de Onate was NM's first governor, so he gets a nifty statue. But he was also a despot so cruel that that cruellest regime of that time, the Spanish in the American Southwest, decided he was too cruel even for them.

A statue never just means one thing. In this case, it commemorates a man who was "the first governor of NM," sure, but he was also an absolute tyrant, who would have gladly taken the membership list of a website like this, tortured the details out of the owner, then hunted us down and cut off our right feet just to teach us a lesson. A heroic-looking statue without any kind of explanation of such a complicated legacy does nothing to deepen our understanding of history.

Have you been in a classroom recently hearing about Christopher Columbus? Because its a lot more negative now than it was when I was a kid.

 

[Picton]

Have you been in a classroom recently hearing about Christopher Columbus? Because its a lot more negative now than it was when I was a kid.

I have, as a matter of fact.

Did he not spread disease? I hardly think mentioning that is ahistorical. It was fairly important, though unintended. Should we only teach the "good parts?"

 

[xtry51]

I have, as a matter of fact.

Did he not spread disease? I hardly think mentioning that is ahistorical. It was fairly important, though unintended. Should we only teach the "good parts?"

My point is teaching is meaningless if the material changes to make the information change thru time.

 

[Picton]

My point is teaching is meaningless if the material changes to make the information change thru time.

We're getting off topic here, but the material does change. New research always produces new knowledge, and as it does so, our understanding of history changes. When my dad was in high school, Columbus was the first European to reach North America. Then, they discovered L'Anse Aux Meadows.

Are we still supposed to pretend Columbus was first?

Pluto's not a planet anymore. Plate tectonics is no longer a theory. Research happens.

 

[sieveboy]

I have, as a matter of fact.

Did he not spread disease? I hardly think mentioning that is ahistorical.

So you’re seriously holding Columbus personally responsible transmitting microbes? They were first discovered in 1665!

 

[Picton]

So you’re seriously holding Columbus personally responsible transmitting microbes? They were first discovered in 1665!

Relax.

He did spread microbes. He didn't intend to. Why would a history teacher ignore that that happened? That would, in itself, be biased.

 

[Climbnsink]

I have, as a matter of fact.

Did he not spread disease? I hardly think mentioning that is ahistorical. It was fairly important, though unintended. Should we only teach the "good parts?"

No. The disease spreading thing was early anti-Western civilization pysop. And it worked you fell for it. And you fell for it so hard you will probably quote your puppet-master's lies.

 

[Reptile]

I got this from Andrew Branca:

This week's episode of After Action Analysis was just posted on the Law of Self Defense blog, and it provides a detailed video and law-based analysis of the shooting of the Antifa member in New Mexico this weekend. This one is rich in video, still photos, and analysis, and also includes the criminal complaint against the shooter, who has now been charged with aggravated assault with a firearm. Law of Self Defense Members can access the blog post by clicking the image or link below:



http://lawofselfdefense.com/blog

 

[xtry51]

I got this from Andrew Branca:

This week's episode of After Action Analysis was just posted on the Law of Self Defense blog, and it provides a detailed video and law-based analysis of the shooting of the Antifa member in New Mexico this weekend. This one is rich in video, still photos, and analysis, and also includes the criminal complaint against the shooter, who has now been charged with aggravated assault with a firearm. Law of Self Defense Members can access the blog post by clicking the image or link below:



http://lawofselfdefense.com/blog

Paywall

 

[oldguy68]

I read a post on IG calling this a bad shoot. According to the post, as soon as he drew his weapon his assailants started running away, thus removing one of the three components (opportunity) necessary to justify deadly force. I disagree, because the Antifa douches were still carrying weapons, and still within a distance to present a lethal problem to Mr. Blue Shirt if they decided to rejoin the attack. Hopefully the grand jury agrees. Either way, I like that he employed Boarding House Rules.

So the police and DA are going to charge him..Hmmm...

But at that Atlanta GA., Wendy's shooting where it was only one guy vs two officers and everyone thinks that shooting was justified.
In Atlanta, I call it what it is, murder.
The officer shot a man holding a non-lethal device. Remember those same devices are deemed non-lethal and safe to use on the civilian population.
The perp was running away and posed no immediate lethal threat.

Here we have a man, who has a right as they do, to peacefully assemble and multiple men advancing towards him with one loudly stating he is going to kill him.
He did fear for his life as officers have when they were faced with the same circumstances.
Except it's ok to threaten to kill this man, simply because he was at the same place as they were?
What the hell is wrong with anyone that agree's with him being prosecuted for his actions when they justify the police for doing the same thing?

Look at how a police officer can draw his weapon anytime he feels like his life is in danger.
Yet for the lowly serfs, we would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and brandishing.

When was the last time a police officer was charged for discharging his firearm within city limits or 500 feet of a dwelling.
Those charges are likely to be added to this mans long list of things that the police and DA are going to pursue for the same actions a police officer would not!

Police patrol rifle/civilian assault rifle.

How many times has an officer pulled out his firearm and threatened to kill a perp and they still carry a badge.
Then see how easy our 2A rights can be stripped away forever, while so many in law enforcement have done way worse and are immune from those consequences.

This is yet another wtf moment, in what is wrong with the inequality of police policy and actions vs those of the people.

Can't wait till they have the same rights as us lowly serfs...

The deck is stacked against our civilian population in regards to our right of personal protection.
When the police, DA, and the judges act/rule with a bias against a civilian for doing the exact same thing that they did in a self defense situation.

Someone more educated than I am, please explain were our rights ended and were we gave those to the law enforcement?

 

[Guyute]

Here we have a man, who has a right as they do, to peacefully assemble and multiple men advancing towards him with one loudly stating he is going to kill him.

In what world was that man peacefully assembling? The militia was peacefully assembling but the shooter wasn’t. I don’t see how some of you see this guy as a victim. He pushes several women then pulls out mace what would you expect to happen? As for what he should be charged with I don’t know because I’m not going to pretend to understand N.M. law.

I also think the man with the skateboard should be charged we the man with the other weapon that continued to chase his

 

[oldguy68]

As to what he may have done before the shooting.
I would say that is irrelevant.

Aren't all these assemblies of people right now deemed peaceful?

You can't threaten to kill person because they act in a manner you may not agree with.

Everyone in the mob around him could have walked way, as the jury will be told.

But a group of men did not and advanced towards him with a threat of death!

Now some will say he was looking for trouble and got what he asked for.
Well, that same argument can be said for those protesters.

 

[Guyute]

So you assault someone and pullout a weapon and then people immediately react. Thats irrelevant?


I want to make it clear the only ones I support in these videos are the militia. They were peaceful, they stopped this issue from becoming worse and they performed first aid

 

[oldguy68]

So by your logic, we have a legal right to threaten to kill someone if they assault us in any manner?

Try threatening to kill a police officer with three of your buddies, while advancing towards him, with one visibly holding a blunt object and see how well that turns out for you?

Multiply attackers vs one man and the threat of death.
It was not a one on one confrontation, if it was, it would depend on who had what visible and how their actions were leading up to the man shooting them.

The mob escalated this into a deadly encounter!

The victim was retreating backwards and smartly kept an eye on those that chose to continue to advance on him willing death or grave bodily harm.

If they had done as he had and retreated from the situation the outcome would have been totally different!

They did not know he had a pistol on him till he brought it to arms. But they sure as hell brought their's out to do him harm.
He did not threaten to kill them. They did and had the visible and physical means by their numbers to do so!

 

[Guyute]

if you assault people and pull out mace, the first weapon pulled, you instigated the violence. If you do so while carrying a gun you should be charged for instigating it.

The others should be arrested for attacking as well

 

[Dennis in MA]

Waaaay late to the party.

I don't like Antifa and the like doing all this crap, but honestly - we're far better off in the end if we let their little soy asses destroy this property. Because it shows who they are and how they don't stand for what your rank-and-file Americans stand for.

Is it "right"? No.

Is it smart? Yes.

The MSM is primed to spin all of these stories as anti-peaceful-protest thugs and crazy gun owners. Don't take the bait. Make THEM look like the crazy ones.

 

[xtry51]

if you assault people and pull out mace, the first weapon pulled, you instigated the violence. If you do so while carrying a gun you should be charged for instigating it.

The others should be arrested for attacking as well

If youre going down this rabbit hole, the woman assaulted him first by blocking him. Watch all the videos. So he was assaulted by the mob first. He responded to her act.

 

[oldguy68]

You can't threaten to kill someone simply because they instigate some event.
This isn't a who started it and who may be right in their view of current events.
Or they deserved it by an earlier action or by even being there.

Put yourself in the act that is in question.
Did this man's actions in firing that pistol seem justified in the exact moment he fired it?

Three men, two trying to grab hold of him, another with a skateboard (used by Antifa to bludgeon someone), with many others following after him.
All the while in these last moments leading up to the gun being fired there are chants of "KILL HIM"!

If the man retreating backwards was to trip or be brought to the ground.
I would fully expect him to receive life threatening injuries or to possibly be killed.
The only way he could be sure of a positive outcome was for him to draw his weapon and possibly fire it to get them to retreat!

 

[Coyote33]

Did the attacker who was shot by blue shirt live or die? If he lived, I say they should both get the same charges. If he died, not sure.

We're getting off topic here, but the material does change. New research always produces new knowledge, and as it does so, our understanding of history changes. When my dad was in high school, Columbus was the first European to reach North America. Then, they discovered L'Anse Aux Meadows.

Are we still supposed to pretend Columbus was first?

Pluto's not a planet anymore. Plate tectonics is no longer a theory. Research happens.

1) He wasn't? (Maybe not "reach", but he "discovered" it, and made it back.
2) Is that where the vikings came?
3) It's not?


As far as monuments, they might as well take down the original slave monuments, the great pyramids.

 

[Skysoldier]

Just thought I would update this with a little bit of truth instead of speculation....

1. The idiot shooter has not been charged with the actual shooting, because so far the investigation shows that it was
in self defense, because his attacker was threatening him with a knife (not a garrot.) He was charged with illegal carrying
a concealed weapon, and also with assault from his previous actions, i.e. throwing a female to the ground (Although a good
defense attorney could argue that her prior actions could also be deemed as physical assault.)

2. The idiot that got shot will most likely be charged with Assault with a deadly weapon before he is discharged
from the hospital. And he was not shot while running away. He got shot, then proceeded to run away and collapsed!

3. There were more than a few undercover police officers there, and they are still searching for other suspects to charge.

4. The shooter, was not a member of the so called "militia" group. (They also had a TV interview with one of militia members, and he seemed
like an Airsoft, wannabee loser....but this is my opinion.) And the only thing any militia members did was secure the weapon after
the shooting until police arrived.

5. The Governor has called in the State Police, because she and the Mayor are upset that the APD investigation is not
backing up their previous narrative/bullshit about this being the result of "right wing militia members."

6. Although the shooter is an idiot in my opinion, if the Antifa idiot tries to sue him, I will contribute money to the
shooters defense fund.

And the OP really should change the title of this post, because this whole mess had nothing to do with "Militia!"

 

[Grendizer138]

In what world was that man peacefully assembling? The militia was peacefully assembling but the shooter wasn’t. I don’t see how some of you see this guy as a victim. He pushes several women then pulls out mace what would you expect to happen? As for what he should be charged with I don’t know because I’m not going to pretend to understand N.M. law.

He physically pushed away people advancing toward him, then used a non-lethal option (pepper spray) when they became more aggressive, then retreated, then pulled out his burner while being attacked by multiple aggressors with lethal weapons. When the cops came he surrendered without incident and didn’t talk. This is literally a step-by-step of how to use appropriate force.

You can argue about whether or not he should have been there in the first place - I know I wouldn’t have been - but that’s irrelevant as to whether the shooting was justified.