BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

iebamm2580

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Contact the appropriate authorities.

The ISPCA?;)

iebamm2580

Overheal wrote: »

Does someone have to be an animal to do that?

not always

Overheal

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Ah yes the well known political viewpoint "**** you, **** you, booo"

Acting like 10 year olds - don't debate, intimidate

You don't have to agree with them but it is their right. Same with this crowd of incoherent screechers:

MisterAnarchy

Overheal wrote: »

All I see here is political speech. Hardly rise for calling people scum.

You are either deluded or else trolling if you believe that.

Broadstone Bob

Overheal wrote: »

Carry laws are not niche they are bread and butter of gun legislation in the united states. They aren't some obscure statute from the 16th century that only gets referenced once every 18 years or something, they are a constant presence in firearm jurisprudence, and it's very dishonest to spin otherwise.

You're as bad as the fools in the MAGA hats screaming build-that-wall. No matter what facts or evidence are put in front of the far left its always comes down to "us v them". Same as the MAGA's.
Everyone in the middle suffers while the far left get their kicks taking the moral high ground.

Foxtrol

Sand wrote: »

First of all you need to prove that the mob attacked KR because of the crime he committed. I.E. being 17 and crossing state lines. That is near impossible.

A witness has said that KR approaching someone damaging property is what set everything off. If true, the fist victim may have cover of self defense for chasing KR.

Even if you cant somehow prove that, he's still running away from the attackers. So he easily meets the requirement to regain his right to self defence.

In the first case, he is running away from an unarmed man, he wasn't cornered, and turned to indiscriminately shoot and hit him 3 times.

Using the term of 'attackers' for the 2nd two is just wrong. They saw KR shoot a guy and went to stop him. I'm still waiting for someone that believes he was being 'attacked' to explain how killers now suddenly become immune from prosecution for killing members of the public that try stop them.

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

That's your opinion, despite being an incorrect one.

It's 100% fact he will not be convicted of murder because of not having a permit , it will be established whether he acted in self defense or not first which is plain to see then he LL prob be punished for illegal carry.

Again not having a gun permit doesnt equal murderer.

Overheal

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

You're as bad as the fools in the MAGA hats screaming build-that-wall. No matter what facts or evidence are put in front of the far left its always comes down to "us v them". Same as the MAGA's.
Everyone in the middle suffers while the far left get their kicks taking the moral high ground.

I have no earthly idea how this rant relates to anything I was quoted saying.

Overheal

Cupatae wrote: »

It's 100% fact he will not be convicted of murder because of not having a permit , it will be established whether he acted in self defense or not first which is plain to see then he LL prob be punished for illegal carry.

Again not having a gun permit doesnt equal murderer.

Well, we can agree that part is a fact, because permits have no relevance here. It was open carry, not concealed carry. There aren't permits required for open carry, but you must be at least 18, which he wasn't.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

Then why do people that support your perspective keep bring up his past and why do you not call them out on it?

I only speak for myself and as I've said before I don't keep bringing people's past into the discussion. Why others do it, you'll have to ask them that. I can only speak for myself.

I'm also not the internet police. I'll comment on things I am interested in and won't comment on things if I don't think they are relevant. As I've said before, I don't think the people's past criminal behaviour has anything to do with the shootings.

Then why do people that support your perspective keep bring up his past and why do you not call them out on it?

Same answer as above.

Can't see anything in Wiconsin law that states that. Happy to be corrected but everything I see is actual physical harm.

I'm not a lawyer in Wisconsin and I'd guess you aren't either so neither of us are up-to-speed on what's law there. A quick google of the definition of assault in Wisconsin threw up the following:

Under Wisconsin law, battery is defined as using force against someone with the intent to injure them, whereas assault is the threat of bodily harm; no actual physical contact is required.

That's actually very similar to Ireland. The threat of bodily harm is classed as assault. So, people chasing him with the intent of doing him harm, and certainly people throwing stuff at him would be considered assault in Wisconsin.

An eye witness posted in an earlier article stated that Rittenhouse approached someone that was damaging something and that is what kicked everything off. If so it could be the first victim that was using self defense by chasing him away (even if that is an incredibly stupid thing to do).

That's a very big if. No idea if that's true by the way. But lets pretend that it is. Rattenhouse approaches someone damaging property. Nothing wrong with that. He asks them to stop. Nothing wrong with that. It's the rest of it that we don't know anything about.

Here's a point on the above narrative. Some on here, not sure if you were one of them, claim that Rittenhouse can't claim self defence because he was committing a crime by having the gun. If that's the case, the first victim can't claim self defence because he was committing a crime by destroying property. I don't agree with that by the way. I still think that losing the right to self defence depends on the crime. But again, the court case will decide on that.

By his actions going to the event armed and per that witness by approaching someone he was the instigator and put himself under threat.

I agree. He was too young to be doing what he was doing and foolishly put himself in harms way.

He has to prove that he felt that he was under 'imminent death or great bodily harm'. The first guy was unarmed and was shot 3 times. I don't see that as being 'reasonable force' when you chose to break laws to go into a violent situation

He doesn't have to prove that. The prosecution have to prove that he wasn't under 'imminent death or great bodily harm'. The video evidence would seem to show that he was indeed under imminent threat.

And just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean that they don't pose a threat to you.

I don't think the number of shots makes much difference when they were fired rapidly. I would consider three shots to be reasonable. He fired them in quick succession. What wouldn't be reasonable would be if he shot the guy once, then waited 10 seconds, shot him again, and then waited another 10 seconds and shot him a third time.

Not if he was guilty of recklessness prior to it.

He was foolish by being there but we don't know if he was reckless as there doesn't seem to be video footage of what led to him being chased immediately prior to the first shooting.

Again, I ask by your logic are you then saying that anyone can commit what appear to be crimes and if any member of public tries to stop them the person has open season to kill them?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that pretty much everything rests on whether the first shooting was a crime or not. In other words if it was murder or self defence.

It may turn out that the only crime that Rittenhouse committed was to have the gun in the first place.

If the courts view the first shooting as self defence, I feel they will have no choice other than to view the other two shootings as self defence.

I think there is a problem with any justice system where a person can bring an illegal weapon and purposefully insert themselves into a violent situation and then get off by claiming 'self defense'. I'd say the same thing if a black 17 year old did it at a proud boys rally.

Yep, there are problems over in the States alright.

It is utter nonsense, just like Florida stand your ground laws that allowed Zimmerman walk free after murdering Trayvon Martin, when against police commands decided to be a vigilante and attack him for the crime of being black and wearing a hoodie.

I'd nothing to do with the passing of laws in the States. Some of them are dumb alright.

Broadstone Bob

Foxtrol wrote: »

A witness has said that KR approaching someone damaging property is what set everything off. If true, the fist victim may have cover of self defense for chasing KR.



In the first case, he is running away from an unarmed man, he wasn't cornered, and turned to indiscriminately shoot and hit him 3 times.

Using the term of 'attackers' for the 2nd two is just wrong. They saw KR shoot a guy and went to stop him. I'm still waiting for someone that believes he was being 'attacked' to explain how killers now suddenly become immune from prosecution for killing members of the public that try stop them.

"If true, the fist victim may have cover of self defense for chasing KR."

Completely delusional and is a perfect example of the point I made in my previous post.
Absolute waste of time arguing with people who, no matter what evidence is put in front of them, will never think for themselves.

Broadstone Bob

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

You're as bad as the fools in the MAGA hats screaming build-that-wall. No matter what facts or evidence are put in front of the far left its always comes down to "us v them". Same as the MAGA's.
Everyone in the middle suffers while the far left get their kicks taking the moral high ground.

It's a high ground to say that somebody shouldn't break multiple laws to act out a vigilante fantasy resulting in multiple people being killed?

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

Well, we can agree that part is a fact, because permits have no relevance here. It was open carry, not concealed carry. There aren't permits required for open carry, but you must be at least 18, which he wasn't.

So you believe they are going to walk into court ask did he have a permit and when he says no bam hammer slams murderer goodbye.

Are you that naive ?

You are gonna be proper devastated when he doesn't get murder.

Overheal

Cupatae wrote: »

So you believe they are going to walk into court ask did he have a permit and when he says no bam hammer slams murderer goodbye.

Nobody is going to ask if he had a permit because a CWP is not relevant to the case, there was no concealed carry.

ThunbergsAreGo

Overheal wrote: »

You don't have to agree with them but it is their right. Same with this crowd of incoherent screechers:

Sorry is that whataboutery?

There are morons on all sides of Americas, it's just these idiots time to "shine". Intimidating people coming from a convention, armed with a camera phone to record the smallest micro aggression. Really progressive, really brave, egged on by people such as yourself.

If you can't see what these idiots are doing is harming the movement or organisation they claim to believe in, i really don't understand you.

statesaver

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

You are either deluded or else trolling if you believe that.

He/she is a mod for ' Ranting and Raving ' what do you expect.

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

Nobody is going to ask if he had a permit because a CWP is not relevant to the case, there was no concealed carry.

Exactly so it's self defense then. His being attacked by 4 people and initially chased by the mob for no reason.

Clear cut self defense

Cupatae

statesaver wrote: »

He/she is a mod for ' Ranting and Raving ' what do you expect.

Lmfao

Overheal

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Sorry is that whataboutery?

No it's exemplifying the proud tradition of free speech in the US. I don't agree with why they protested at all but they had the right to do it.

If you can't see what these idiots are doing is harming the movement or organisation they claim to believe in, i really don't understand you.

I never claimed to not see that people view the activity in a negative light. My point is specifically that despite people viewing the activity as counterproductive to their movement, it is still their right to do it and I didn't see illegal activity in the video.

Foxtrol

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

foxtrol you have put BLM up on a pedestal, as a gayman I've lived through enough sh#t growing up in ireland in the 90's what i see in these clips is life seems to be going back to these days, funny enough i dont see this stuff been called out by BLM group, as for right wing groups they can go feck themselves I've no interest in their sh#t, what we're witnessing is BLM going around beaten the crap of white people who hold a different point of view. Yes I'm outraged and pissed right off( not pretending) i can see only one way this going and its not gonna be all fluffy clouds and roses ....

You let your mask slip in the bold.

You don't like BLM and are trying to find any excuse to attack them. I posted an article where tens of thousands of BLM supporters attended gay/trans events and you're now obsessed with a few idiots mouthing off. I can guarantee you'd be a lot more welcome at a BLM event than you would at a Blue Live Matter, militia, or right wing event.

It is obvious race is a much bigger driver of your anger than anything else.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

And shooting a person in the head does not fall under reasonable force... Particularly when you've got a rifle and the other party is unarmed...

I wouldn't bet my life on that.

Overheal

Cupatae wrote: »

Exactly so it's self defense then. His being attacked by 4 people and initially chased by the mob for no reason.

Clear cut self defense

Not following your leap in logic there sorry. He was carrying illegally, he transported illegally. He was engaged in criminal activity with the firearm, and used the firearm to kill someone. It's very unlikely the court will determine that is privileged self defense.

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

Not following your leap in logic there sorry. He was carrying illegally, he transported illegally. He was engaged in criminal activity with the firearm, and used the firearm to kill someone. It's very unlikely the court will determine that is privileged self defense.

We have established he was carrying illegally , we have no moved on to the mob attacking and chasing him, they initiated the violence , and got shot accordingly for it when 4 of them attack a 17 yr old now with out repeating about the illegal carry of the gun can you address this critical part?

Q1 Did 4 people attack him initially leading to them being shot and killed?

Q2 Was he trying to flee from them when this happened?

Q3 did he only open fire when knocked to the ground and attack by 3 of them and had no other choice?

Q4 had he not shot them what do you think they would have done to him? Even with hindsight that they were armed and convicted sex offenders and felons?

ThunbergsAreGo

Overheal wrote: »

No it's exemplifying the proud tradition of free speech in the US. I don't agree with why they protested at all but they had the right to do it.



I never claimed to not see that people view the activity in a negative light. My point is specifically that despite people viewing the activity as counterproductive to their movement, it is still their right to do it and I didn't see illegal activity in the video.

No that's whataboutery....

Besides having the right to do something, doesn't nake you not a moron for doing it.

But you don't see it as negative.... Its clear you don't think there is anything wrong with intimidation, looting, violence or launching large metal projectiles at people as long as its "your team".

It is wrong regardless of the side or person doing it

Overheal

Cupatae wrote: »

We have established he was carrying illegally , we have no moved on to the mob attacking and chasing him, they initiated the violence , and got shot accordingly for it when 4 of them act a 17 yr old now with our repeating about the illegal carry of the gun can you address this critical part?

As we said, he was carrying illegally, so it's very likely the jury/court will rule that he does not have the legal privilege to self defense with an illegally carried weapon.

Overheal

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

No that's whataboutery....

Besides having the right to do something, doesn't nake you not a moron for doing it.

But you don't see it as negative.... Its clear you don't think there is anything wrong with intimidation, looting, violence or launching large metal projectiles at people as long as its "your team".

It is wrong regardless of the side or person doing it

You're spinning what I said and asserting things I never stated.

It is not whataboutery: everyone has the 1st amendment in the US. I have demonstrated, with just one example (there are thousands, if not millions of others) of people yelling and it being regarded as politically protected speech.

You are conflating that, with 'looting, violence, and throwing objects' which are not protected speech, and I have never claimed they were.

iebamm2580

Overheal wrote: »

You're spinning what I said and asserting things I never stated.

It is not whataboutery: everyone has the 1st amendment in the US. I have demonstrated, with just one example (there are thousands, if not millions of others) of people yelling and it being regarded as politically protected speech.

You are conflating that, with 'looting, violence, and throwing objects' which are not protected speech, and I have never claimed they were.

haha ffs the irony.

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

As we said, he was carrying illegally, so it's very likely the jury/court will rule that he does not have the legal privilege to self defense with an illegally carried weapon.

You didn't answer the rest of that question

edjkdkjdhjkd

Did anyone see the video all over twitter of the BLM protestors in NY beating a raccoon to death, their rationale was that the raccoon symbolized a black person and they acted as the police, it was heart breaking to watch.

Anyone who can support BLM is sick in the head

Overheal

Cupatae wrote: »

You didn't answer the rest of that question

In fact I did: he was carrying illegally and almost certainly won't be given the privilege to self-defense.