Protesters insurgents in Aurora, Colorado attacked a jeep on the highway, flattening one of its tires. Later, that same Jeep approached another set of protesters rioters insurgents and refused to stop. So the insurgents fired on the Jeep, striking several of their own. 

At this point, there is a reasonable expectation that any group that is blocking traffic is actively hostile. Anyone who stops for such a protest is likely to either become a victim or a combatant. 
We have seen insurgents use clubs, chemical weapons, energy weapons (LASERs), explosives, incendiaries, and other lethal weapons. We have seen them threaten the use of firearms.  
The police and other government officials are OK with ceding territory, abandoning buildings, and being the target of attacks by thrown objects, melee weapons, explosives, lasers, and incendiary devices. 
If you are taking fire from multiple people who are a part of a group of co-conspirators (combatants), at what point does this move from the standard civilian rules of engagement (only fire upon those who are an active threat) to rules more suited to combat. In other words, when is it appropriate to consider the entire group to be enemy combatants, and employ suppressive fire?
We have seen a few people respond to the violence by returning fire. Now we are seeing multiple people in the insurgent crowds fire at others. It’s only a matter of time before we move from there to a mag dump, or even to force on force engagements. 
Categories: Uncategorized


Jess · July 27, 2020 at 12:47 pm

Texas had an unfortunate young man that thought it was a good idea to take part in a protest, carry a rifle, and approach a car with someone that obviously felt threatened. He won't ever make that mistake again, and the gene pool is slightly cleaner.

FredLewers · July 27, 2020 at 9:23 pm

Saw a meme at bayeau renaissance man that tickled me. "All lives splatter. Get your ass off the road."

Comments are closed.