Social Media Justice: A "Karen" faces consequences for threatening a Black man with cops

oates said:
Why don't you take this to pm, I understand the need you feel but sometimes you can make more progress in private.
Click to expand...
It would be progressive in private if the accusation wasn’t made in public. I’ve re-read my posts on this & he’s simply tried to subvert the discussion because he was asked an uneasy question.

In the Current Events things can go off in a direction we don’t ideally want at times so I’ve PMd people & vice-versa but don’t enter these discussions in bad faith. A difference of opinion is expected but don’t fabricate.

I’ve seen his posts around the forums & he seems sound mostly but I’d expect better in here.
 
Sky1981 said:
The University

He did nothing wrong, it wasn't even him with the gun, he calmly get in his car and called the cops.
Click to expand...
hes been charged hasnt he?

Bouchard said both Wuestenbergs were holding loaded guns and both had legal Concealed Pistol Licenses (CPLs) when police arrived.
Click to expand...
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/oa...ter-gun-is-pulled-during-parking-lot-argument

In an afternoon news conference, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said the suspects, who were arrested at the eatery, each had legal handguns and concealed pistol licenses.

The charges, he added, stem from using their guns to threaten the victims.

Bouchard said the sheriff's detectives investigating the case were "presented with two very different stories from two different groups, with both sides claiming they felt extremely threatened."

No gunshots were fired, there were no injuries and, the sheriff added, had the couple not drawn their weapons on unarmed victims, they would not have been facing felony assault charges.
Click to expand...

https://eu.freep.com/story/news/loc...chipotle-parking-lot-gun-incident/5366368002/

Sounds like he did more than sit in the car and call the police to me
 
Last edited:
Sky1981 said:
If you think the man got what he deserves, then let's jsut agree to disagree
Click to expand...
back up - you just said he sat calmly in the car... the police say he pulled his gun and threatened people
surely you can see you argument has just completely been undermined and on that basis (that he threatened unarmed people with a loaded gun) dont you wish to revisit your claim that he didn't draw a gun and sat calmly in the car
 
sun_tzu said:
In this case the University conformed they have seen the video and I think if i were in the university shoes Id have made the same decision
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Was just saying that in a lot of states they don't even need that to get rid.

They had cause to sack him too. They were both guilty of assault by pulling a weapon out and pointing it at someone unless there was an imminent physical threat. Which I don't think there was, is was just someone being an utter prick for no good reason by the sounds of it.
 
JPRouve said:
There is one thing that tells you that it was a bad idea, the woman with the gun is angry and unhinged when she holds her firearm. It's something that many people in this thread seem to be missing, you are not supposed to handle a deadly weapon when you are angry or frightened that's when you make mistakes, that's why security professionals are supposed to be vetted, they are supposed to be extremely calm people who are able to handle stressful situations with composure.

That video should be shown to anyone defending the right for civilians to carry a deadly weapon, it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Her eyes are breathtakingly spooky, so unhinged.
 
SilentWitness said:
No. I know with all of the above I can easily walk or run out of the way of them. A gun I can run out of the way of the range of a bat but the person could still shoot me. Heck, i can be two or three cars away and they can still get me. A gun has way more power than any of those weapons and has way more accidental danger attached to them too. If she was nervous and her finger slipped on a bat she might drop it or loosen/tighten her grip slightly. With a gun she can accidentally fire. They’re far more dangerous/powerful.
Click to expand...
Was the safety even off?
Anyway, the point was that there are many 'weapons' in cars that are there for self defence. She happened to gave a gun; one guy I know has a tyre wrench just for such situations.
Could he kill someone with that? Of course he could, it'd smash someone's skull. The point is to have something, to get the other irrational person to back off so you can make an exit without any physical violence.
 
Rado_N said:
Basically employees have next to no rights and employers can get rid of them without having to justify it.
Click to expand...

Jesus, ok thanks for explaining. Can employees take employers to tribunals on grounds of unfair dismissal then? How does that work if the employers don't even need to provide a reason for sacking? How are people protected against discrimination, or victimisation?
 
MadMike said:
Jesus, ok thanks for explaining. Can employees take employers to tribunals on grounds of unfair dismissal then? How does that work if the employers don't even need to provide a reason for sacking? How are people protected against discrimination, or victimisation?
Click to expand...

That's the only exception, they can't be dismissed for illegal reasons such as sexism or racism etc. But there doesn't need to be any justification in terms of job performance or disciplinary action etc.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
 
utdalltheway said:
Was the safety even off?
Anyway, the point was that there are many 'weapons' in cars that are there for self defence. She happened to gave a gun; one guy I know has a tyre wrench just for such situations.
Could he kill someone with that? Of course he could, it'd smash someone's skull. The point is to have something, to get the other irrational person to back off so you can make an exit without any physical violence.
Click to expand...

Does that work? Doesn't bringing out weapons increase the chances of escalation, rather than decrease them? Does US have less incidents of physical violence as a result of gun ownership? Because it sure has more shootings as a result of said gun ownership.
 
utdalltheway said:
Was the safety even off?
Anyway, the point was that there are many 'weapons' in cars that are there for self defence. She happened to gave a gun; one guy I know has a tyre wrench just for such situations.
Could he kill someone with that? Of course he could, it'd smash someone's skull. The point is to have something, to get the other irrational person to back off so you can make an exit without any physical violence.
Click to expand...

They pointed a loaded gun and threatened people ... hence they have been charged
Planning or Threatening a Violent Act
Oklahoma defines planning or threatening a violent act as attempting or conspiring to perform a violent act involving serious bodily harm or death upon another. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1378

Attempting, conspiring, or endeavoring to perform a violent act in Oklahoma is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Merely threatening the same act is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in county jail.

Threatening a violent act is considered a crime against public peace. A person may publicly or privately threaten a violent act without the intended victim ever knowing about the threat. Threatening a violent act differs from assault, because in assault the victim is directly threatened.
Click to expand...
 
utdalltheway said:
Was the safety even off?
Anyway, the point was that there are many 'weapons' in cars that are there for self defence. She happened to gave a gun; one guy I know has a tyre wrench just for such situations.
Could he kill someone with that? Of course he could, it'd smash someone's skull. The point is to have something, to get the other irrational person to back off so you can make an exit without any physical violence.
Click to expand...

It's probably a Glock (women like them) or other striker fired polymer pistol, which means there is no external safety switch. The action of pulling the trigger disengages an internal safety.
 
sun_tzu said:
They pointed a loaded gun and threatened people ... hence they have been charged
Click to expand...
So would that same law apply to the mother, who threatened to kick their white asses, or is there specifics to the law that doesn't cover verbal threats or something?
 
ivaldo said:
So would that same law apply to the mother, who threatened to kick their white asses, or is there specifics to the law that doesn't cover verbal threats or something?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure... though I suspect waving a loaded gun in people's face probably constitutes a much higher threat level.

Implication from the police officer is if it had remained verbal they would not have been charged and it was drawing loaded weapons on unarmed people that seems to have made it a violent threat
In an afternoon news conference, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said the suspects, who were arrested at the eatery, each had legal handguns and concealed pistol licenses.

The charges, he added, stem from using their guns to threaten the victims.

Bouchard said the sheriff's detectives investigating the case were "presented with two very different stories from two different groups, with both sides claiming they felt extremely threatened."

No gunshots were fired, there were no injuries and, the sheriff added, had the couple not drawn their weapons on unarmed victims, they would not have been facing felony assault charges.
Click to expand...
 
sun_tzu said:
I'm not sure... though I suspect waving a loaded gun in people's face probably constitutes a much higher threat level.

Implication from the police officer is if it had remained verbal they would not have been charged and it was drawing loaded weapons on unarmed people that seems to have made it a violent threat
Click to expand...
That's great. Cheers!
 
ivaldo said:
So would that same law apply to the mother, who threatened to kick their white asses, or is there specifics to the law that doesn't cover verbal threats or something?
Click to expand...

They are probably accused of brandishing a firearm which can be illegal, I don't know if it's true everywhere. The law generally concerns all deadly/dangerous weapons, so threatening someone with a knife, a machete or even a golf club could see you prosecuted.
 
JPRouve said:
They are probably accused of brandishing a firearm which can be illegal, I don't know if it's true everywhere. The law generally concerns all deadly/dangerous weapons, so threatening someone with a knife, a machete or even a golf club could see you prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
JPRouve said:
They are probably accused of brandishing a firearm which can be illegal, I don't know if it's true everywhere. The law generally concerns all deadly/dangerous weapons, so threatening someone with a knife, a machete or even a golf club could see you prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is correct JP. Most legal codes, even in places where gun control is lax, prohibit you from waving your gun around in a threatening manner.
 
Comparing a woman yelling at someone to that person pulling a gun on her, not really comparable at all. My fecking god.
 
Rado_N said:
Those bloody commie lawmakers
Click to expand...

I don't know if twirling a pistol is covered by this.

292312.gif
 
calodo2003 said:
Comparing a woman yelling at someone to that person pulling a gun on her, not really comparable at all. My fecking god.
Click to expand...
Obviously pulling a gun and pointing it at someone is beyond next level, but the mother isn't innocent in all this. Pretty much everyone agrees there.

She threatened to beat their 'white asses' after following them to their car. For what? A pregnant woman bumped into her daughter and didn't apologise. Crazy.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
Thank god some semblance of common sense has returned to this thread. There’s a reason arrests & charges have been made in a gun carrying state.

Moving on. Wakey Wakey @Dante ; still waiting for a response on your attempts at gaslighting this conversation.

Not standing for this sh*t even if it is ‘only’ an internet forum; you made the comment below. . .


I asked what their race had to do with it & you then made the below statements. . .


:nono:

Where do I mention their gender in relation to their emotions?

‘You seem to be hinting’ doesn’t cut it, I’ve not made any comments in that direction & you’ve only bought this up once I questioned you on why race was relevant.

I’ve called them idiots, mentalists [and probably many other things] but I’m curious as to how these are sexist descriptives or being used as such. Basically what the hell are you on about?

:nono:

Are the descriptors, woman & mother misogynistic now? I’ve actually taken the time to call Jillian [the gun totter] by her name in instances so let’s not drop it.

You can be civil & shed light. If I’ve been a misogynistic &/or racist in the thread neither are my intention so I’d like to learn from whatever it is otherwise this is blatant gaslighting which is pathetic.

I think labelling peoples posts as racist & misogynistic are serious even if it is ‘only’ an internet forum. Racism is a bannable offence so don’t take being accused of it lightly.

Can anyone recommend a mod I can contact to review my posts related to this for both?
Click to expand...
:lol: Sweet baby Jesus. Being in the karen thread just makes this more funny.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Full circle to the start of the thread.

At the time, it seemed relatively rare, now there seems to be one every other day, sadly commonplace.

I wonder if there really are more now OR just more reported.
Click to expand...
Think the default now is for everyone to pull out their phones & start recording; you then get incidents like the Karlos guy that followed the lady home with a history of inciting incidents but ‘karens’ have been weaponising groups against black men since Emmett Till [& probably long before].

Incidents being on camera remove the ‘he said’, ‘she said’ from the discussion.
 
MadMike said:
Tbh if you don't go around with an intercontinental nuclear missile in your boot, can you even diffuse a parking lot argument?

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Probably the best post in this thread, amazing movie :lol:
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
Think the default now is for everyone to pull out their phones & start recording; you then get incidents like the Karlos guy that followed the lady home with a history of inciting incidents but ‘karens’ have been weaponising groups against black men since Emmett Till [& probably long before].

Incidents being on camera remove the ‘he said’, ‘she said’ from the discussion.
Click to expand...

Hope you can fcuking swim because you’re at risk of drowning in Irony there.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
It would be progressive in private if the accusation wasn’t made in public. I’ve re-read my posts on this & he’s simply tried to subvert the discussion because he was asked an uneasy question.

In the Current Events things can go off in a direction we don’t ideally want at times so I’ve PMd people & vice-versa but don’t enter these discussions in bad faith. A difference of opinion is expected but don’t fabricate.

I’ve seen his posts around the forums & he seems sound mostly but I’d expect better in here.
Click to expand...
Fair point
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Hope you can fcuking swim because you’re at risk of drowning in Irony there.
Click to expand...
And here comes my number 1 fan.

What happened to. . .
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
There was an advisory post/thread here a while back.

Off the back of that.... Is there value In threads like these? The last few have been so divisive. All of us discuss situations we often can’t relate to, and have scant detail on. Many times they unravel, with a trail of forum destruction and division in their wake.

All this noise just raises tension and seems to be in direct opposition to the advisory post I mention.

Consider it this way... we have a higher threshold for Transfer rumours, than we do for public shaming and judgement.

I’d like to know what people think, but I’ll be putting all threads like this on the block list from tomorrow on. I know that nobody cares, not looking for any holier than thou halo polishing. I think discussion is needed and overdue though.
Click to expand...
Why are you still here?

Or are you back here to get personal again. . .
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Well I hope you live a lifetime of people treating you like he treated her. You’ve made a shitty bed to lay in.
Click to expand...
For whatever reason you’re still dragging out this vendetta from weeks ago. Move on.

Tincanalley said:
Fair point
Click to expand...
Thank you. Nice to know posts actually get read in here. Gaslighting is apparently acceptable in the CE forum now.
 
Looking at that video of the women pulling out a gun, if you apply the US/state "stand your ground law" whatever people's feeling, I don't actually see she did much wrong and rightly or wrongly doubt she gets prosecuted.

She was calm in the face of aggression, she tried to leave and the other lady blocked her from doing so and started pounding on her car, at this point in accordance to the law, the other lady is ramping up her aggression to where she could cause damage.
So as bad as it looks the lady pulling out a gun as form of de-escalation and to warden the other lady to back off is not that outrageous if looking how the situation played out in parallel to the boundaries of the law.

Heres a similar but much more extreme example where most would think it being a open and shut murder case but instead the "stand your ground" law came into affect and was being applied, eventually though the shooter was charged and prosecuted with manslaughter
 
Last edited:
starman said:
Looking at that video of the women pulling out a gun, if you apply the US/state "stand your ground law" whatever people's feeling, I don't actually see she did much wrong and rightly or wrongly doubt she gets prosecuted.

She was calm in the face of aggression, she tried to leave and the other lady blocked her from doing so and started pounding on her car, at this point in accordance to the law, the other lady is ramping up her aggression to where she could cause damage.
So as bad as it looks the lady pulling out a gun as form of de-escalation and to warden the other lady to back off is not that outrageous if looking how the situation played out in parallel to the boundaries of the law.

Heres a similar but much more extreme example where most would think it being a open and shut murder case but instead the "stand you ground" law came into effect and was being applied, eventually though the shooter was charged and prosecuted with manslaughter
Click to expand...


It's not a simiar example at all. In one case someone is shoved to the ground, while in the other someone is sat in his car, pick a gun, leaves the car and brandishes his weapon.
 
JPRouve said:
It's not a simiar example at all. In one case someone is shoved to the ground, while in the other someone is sat in his car, pick a gun, leaves the car and brandishes his weapon.
Click to expand...

The whole point is the stand your ground law, in this case the women has a right to protect her property as well. People can have their own personal outrage trial, but its irrelevant if there is a law in place that protects you in committing such acts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.