He's not the only one:

@telfondog @wellnamed

These are the type of post that hijack the threads. It's clear MrWooke wants me to defend my rationale, not the rationale of my argument. Maybe you should put these type of people in their own thread. Your resident narcissist do this constantly, and the toxic cult then demands the person this is being done against be ostracized. He wants me to talk about what I think of JV, not CHAZ, as if talking about JV has any bearing on CHAZ. Why is the one this gets done to, always the one who is the problem child? You have a series of posters who always make it about the arguer, then the left wing cult jumps on board.

Once again, if we can talk about people rationales, instead of their argument, why can't I go in depth on MrWookie's narcissistic rationale?

False imprisonment? No, citizen's arrest:



Note that nobody, at any point, choked, shot, or electrocuted the accused thief, even after he took off running.

I saw no evidence they witnessed the theft.

On Robespierre:

His accuser was in the video, dude.

Yeah, still no evidence he witnessed it. It's not unreasonable to think he assumed he was the thief based on various factors, such as being nearby, etc. We don't know what led them to think he was the thief. EDIT: FYI: This same type of vigilante behavior is what makes the Aubrey murder, murder.

So you're saying you don't have all the facts, and thus are not able to determine for yourself what was happening there?

Right: All we want to do is toss out all the foreigners etc. and not let anymore in.

Left: That's racist

Right: Why are you being so intolerant?

Based on the facts I do have, it's false imprisonment.

Right: Personal armament is essential to securing individual liberty.

Left: [passes out guns]

Right: Wow, you lawless heathens really just want bloodshed, don't you?

no, because an essential element of "False Imprisonment" is that the detention occurred without legal justification

you don't have evidence that it happened without justification

Nice trick. The burden is on the accuser. I have evidence they false imprisoned this guy. I have no evidence this is a citizen's arrest. You have to prove it's a citizens arrest, I don't have to disprove it.

you are accusing people of "False Imprisonment", so the burden is on you

and you've mounted an affirmative defense. The video shows evidence of false imprisonment, it does not have evidence of a citizens arrest.

you have to prove that the detention was without legal authority in order to establish that it was false imprisonment, at the outset - before any "affirmative defense" is raised


you cannot say "well they didn't prove there was legal authority" - that is textbook burden-shifting

Trump: We are open for business, but only for legal immigrants.

Left: That's [F3]racist

Right: These guys for real???

like what do you want...

the police have left

you want to argue it is anarchy, then when the people assume a police role, you say it is an illegal detention

There is no legal authority to forcibly inhibit the movement of another simply because they accused that person of theft. This comes up alot in shoplifting cases where store security stops someone on mere suspicion of theft. Retailers pay a lot of tort claims for this type of thing. In fact, if it turns out the stop is bad, the security guy is fired, and they hope that person does not press criminal charges, or more likely, a civil lawsuit.

Do you really believe that store security guards cannot detain suspected shoplifters?



I quoted & linked the express legal authority, and you come back saying "there's no legal authority".

What are you doing here?

Hilarious. So when you try to delegitimize lefties w.r.t. CHOP because people have guns and lefties are not criticizing it, that's just good arguing. But when leftists point out how you don't criticize right wingers with guns doing the same thing, and therefore your whole point is not a sincere argument, that's narcissism and arguing about the arguer. If the same argument you made is somehow invalid when applied to you when you made the same one, I'd say it's because your original argument is invalid, too.

tort claims, gtfo of here...

Hey, just to warn you, itslyinginvegas finds this kind of deflection to "things he's actually said" VERY INAPPROPRIATE and he might ragequit on you at any second now that you're pointed out this inconsistency

pretty much every single shoplifting case begins with store security detaining a suspect