Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Scout Schultz commits ‘suicide by cop,’ yet Georgia Tech rioters blame police

Published

on

Scout Schultz

A riot erupted at Georgia Tech last night following a vigil for slain student Scout Schultz. A police vehicle was torched as around 50 students marched on the Georgia Tech Police Station. Warnings were issued to residents to stay inside. Two officers sustained minor injuries and three people were arrested and charged with inciting a riot and battery of an officer.

This type of scenario is all-too common lately. A violent or potentially violent suspect gives reason for police to use force. Then, the community and/or student body turn vigils into protest and protests into riots. Looking closer at the situation surrounding this particular shooting, it’s clear that this was not the fault of the police officers involved.

  • 21-year-old Scout Schultz had a history of depression and mental illness. He had attempted suicide in the past according to his father.
  • He called the police to report himself as having a knife and a GUN.
  • While confronting police, he said repeatedly, “Shoot me.”
  • Three suicide notes were found in his room.
  • Despite multiple, often compassionate pleas by the officers involved for him to stop approaching them with his brandished knife (no gun was found), he continued to move towards them until he was shot.

This is a crystal clear example of “suicide by cop,” the act of killing oneself by provoking police officers to use deadly force. Here’s the video of the incident (WARNING: Graphic):

The argument being made by the family’s lawyer and father is that there should have been a non-lethal alternative available. This is a valid point that requires debate. It does NOT require rioting. In fact, rioters make the point for law enforcement to maintain a stronger stance in regards to weapons. These people put their lives in danger on our behalf every time they answer a call. We’ve all seen reports of police being ambushed while on seemingly non-violent calls. Inciting a riot and torching a police vehicle to attempt to make the argument for non-lethal weapons is counterproductive.

The only people who should be blamed for Scout Schultz’ death are Scout Schultz and anyone who pushed him to this point. The police did not do anything other than the exact job they’re required to do. An unstable man with a weapon was making aggressive and unpredictable moves towards them. Do the rioters believe they should have allowed him to stab one of them first before responding?

Perspectives

A troubled Georgia Tech student called 911 on himself, and now he’s dead. | Aaron Colen, TheBlaze

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/09/18/a-troubled-georgia-tech-student-called-911-on-himself-and-now-hes-dead/Scout identified as intersex and non-binary, which is to say he did not conform to the idea of being either male or female and preferred the pronouns “they” and “them.” He was the president of the Georgia Tech Pride Alliance, an LGBTQ student organization.

Georgia Tech students told to stay inside as protests turn violent after vigil for student killed by cops | Kyle Feldscher and Diana Stancy, Washington Examiner

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/georgia-tech-students-told-to-stay-inside-as-protests-turn-violent-after-vigil-for-student-killed-by-cops/article/2634844“We ask that those who wish to protest Scout’s death do so peacefully. Answering violence with violence is not the answer. Our goal is to work diligently to make positive change at Georgia Tech in an effort to ensure a safer campus for all students,” they said in a statement.”This is how we will truly honor Scout’s life and legacy.”

Georgia Tech Student With Knife Shot, Killed by Campus Police [VIDEO] | Dan Zimmerman, The Truth About Guns

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/09/daniel-zimmerman/georgia-tech-student-with-knife-shot-killed-by-campus-police-video/‘Nobody wants to hurt you,’ one of the cops can be heard saying before a shot rings out and Schultz crumples to the ground, screaming out in pain.

Protests erupt at Georgia Tech following vigil for student killed by campus police | WSB-TV

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/protests-erupt-at-georgia-tech-following-vigil-for-student-killed-by-campus-police/611338762Georgia Tech confirmed to Wilfon that two Georgia Tech police officers had minor injuries from the protests. One of those officers was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital. The officers are expected to be OK.

 

Outrage Erupts After Armed Non-Binary Student is Shot by Cops | Nichole Cooper, Louder with Crowder

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/outrage-armed-non-binary-shot-cops/This whole incident was unfortunate, but no abuse of power took place. Cops plead with the man to drop his weapon. He did not. He continued to approach them in a violent manner (armed with a weapon) and now he’s dead. Leftists should focus their energy on mourning this death, not using it to whack police or virtue signal.

Reactions

Final Thoughts

Today, there seems to be an instant jump to violence and riots to “honor” dangerous people who are killed by law enforcement. The rioters love to prop up their “innocent” victims and persecute the police who protect them daily. It’s time for these responses of violence to end. Peaceful protesting and public awareness may not be as newsworthy as violent riots, but it goes much further towards establishing dialogues that can solve the actual root problems Americans face.

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don’t believe them

Published

on

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don't believe them

It’s a lie. Every time, it’s a lie. Most leftist gungrabbers will add a note at the end of their gungrabbing rhetoric by pretending to respect the 2nd Amendment. They want you to think they’re pushing “common sense” gun control, because who doesn’t like common sense?

There isn’t a lick of common sense in any gun control measure. Anything that could have been considered common sense gun control, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 that kept regulated interstate commerce to hamper mail-order gun purchases, have already been put in place. Anything going forward that appeals to common sense is unnecessary and damaging to the 2nd Amendment.

Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) once said he respects the 2nd Amendment.

“I support gun safety measures, and I’ll tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country.”

His statements on Twitter yesterday said all we need to know.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Gun rights activists: Stop acting like we don’t hold every high ground

Published

on

Gun rights activists Stop acting like we don't hold every high ground

Forgive me if I offend any of my fellow gun rights activists. It’s my intention to educate, not irritate. But I’ve become increasingly annoyed by arguments that play into the leftist agenda. We have the high ground. When you have the high ground, you don’t go down to the enemy’s level. We hold the high ground.

We hold the moral high ground. For every mass shooting incident that takes lives, there are dozens of stories that don’t get nearly the same attention but demonstrate how gun owners prevent crimes. They’re out there defending themselves and others from people who would do them harm.

We hold the intellectual high ground. Where do most gun crimes occur? Where gun laws are obtuse. Chicago is the shining example of how obtuse gun laws prevent citizens from defending themselves. How often do we see gun violence in gun free zones?

We hold the historical high ground. The first thing a government does before turning against its people is take away the people’s ability to defend their rights. One of the most common leftist arguments is that Americans have no reason to fear oppression from the government. This is a backwards argument as it has been shown on multiple occasions that the government was hampered from oppressing American citizens because of the presence of weapons. It’s naive to think the government would never try to oppress us. History shows they already have at times and certainly will again in the future.

We hold the constitutional high ground. This needs no explanation.

We hold the emotional high ground. This is hard for most to understand since it’s emotional responses to mass shooting that usually prompt calls for gun control. That’s exactly why we hold the emotional high ground. As long as we remain consistent and stop operating in the leftists’ emotional echo chambers, we can maintain control of the emotional argument. It’s easy for people to be affected by senseless violence, but that’s no reason to ignore common sense or logical discipline.

What gets to me is when gun rights activists start making arguments such as logistics. I cringe every time I see stats about how many AR rifles are owned. The argument that there are so many out there it would be impractical to take them away is ludicrous. It’s like saying, “You may be right to want to take away guns but it would be too hard.”

The push for gun control is gaining momentum. We cannot give the gungrabbers an inch. We don’t need to. Our arguments are righteous. The only way they’ll win is if we let them distract us and bring us down to fighting on their level.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report