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

edjkdkjdhjkd

edjkdkjdhjkd wrote: »

BLM torture and beat animals to death, just look for the BLM raccoon video. You can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals, absolutely disgusting.

BLM supporters aren't even animals, they are scum

Is that official BLM policy? Any link?

Broadstone Bob

Overheal wrote: »

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

Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7SooO03bJ8

Watch it all and his previous video explaining the self defence laws in Wisconsin. Note at the 17 minute mark he makes the point that the object thrown by victim 1 may not be a gun but is still a weapon. At the same time another BLM protestor is discharging his handgun into the air.
The lawyer who makes this video says
"2 people basically discharging weapons right around Kyle as he is running away. If thats not self defence I don't know what is"

Ill take this guys professional opinion over the guy with 50k posts on an irish Internet forum.

edjkdkjdhjkd

also, why has there been next to no media coverage or celebrities speaking out about the brutal killing of 5 year old Cannon Hinnant by a black man, oh yes i forgot it's because he was white and doesn't fit the narrative. If the roles were reversed we would never hear the end of it.

Criminal drugged up Porn star, gets killed during an arrest in possession of counterfeit notes = Outrage worldwide and media shoving this BLM bs down our throat

vs

5 year old child Cannon Hinnat shot in the head while playing outside his house with his 2 sisters by a black criminal = No media coverage at all

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Ah sure but if it sounds good and supports the narrative repeat it here without doing any additional verification.

Here's where I read it.

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/


But like I said, I don't know if it's 100% true.

youd have thought that one thread about american current affairs would have sufficed on boards.ie but it seems that five threads a day is what some people would like

funny one. must be nothing happening in ireland

Overheal

iebamm2580 wrote: »

good you admit both sides are capable of being wrong, thats all i wanted. Political speech can be done in much more humane ways im sure you would agree.

Objectively yes of course, but that doesn't make what's been seen invalid either. And I'm not talking about the violence.

There's an easy track to take which is oppressive to free speech by needlessly criticizing free speech for being 'the wrong kind of speech' like people being apoplectic about the NFL/NBA kneeling/protests. I can't think of anything more humane than quietly kneeling while a song is played, yet exception is taken with that as well.

RWCNT

edjkdkjdhjkd wrote: »

BLM torture and beat animals to death, just look for the BLM raccoon video. You can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals, absolutely disgusting.

BLM supporters aren't even animals, they are scum

Sounds horrible but to suggest thats somehow endemic of the movement is insanely retarded.

Have you seen the scale of some of the demonstrations in support of the movement? Painting with a nonsensically broad brush there amigo.

nj27

They get touched a lot by other blacks. Spec ops are very white tho. They might not be too aggressive when faced with them. I didn’t face too many race issues in Africa on duty, but that’s just racism?

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

Well if you want appear balanced then I don't think you should be calling out just people that you disagree with.

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:

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.

Thanks for finding that. The term threat is so loose though, is someone approaching you with a gun assault then?

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.

Well if someone approaches you at night in the middle of a riot with a (illegal) long gun, can you feel threatened and allowed to try to chase that person away?

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.

The problem with people blaming the first victim is he never laid a hand on KR. It is down to reasonableness again. Reasonable is chasing someone away, unreasonable is shooting them 3 times before they put their hands on you.

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.

It isn't just the threat they can just show that the actions he took weren't necessary based on the threat. Why did he need to shoot 3 times? The guy had no weapons. I'm guessing this ties into the reckless use charge.

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.

I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to only shoot a person once and then reassess the threat to you. The victim didn't even have his hands on him. He didn't shoot in self defense, he shot to kill.

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.

No, which is why I think it is a huge jump for those to claim self defense to presume he did nothing to instigate that chase. Yes the victim is in videos being aggressive but KR decided to illegally take his gun to a riot. People want to make excuses for him but that is how the prosecution with rightfully paint him.

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.

He could be found to have recklessly used his weapon prior to the 2nd and 3rd he is done for. There is no way you can recklessly use you weapon and then have free reign to shoot members of the public if they try to stop you.

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

Then I presume you don't have any issue with not agreeing with verdicts based on dumb laws.

Overheal

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7SooO03bJ8

Watch it all and his previous video explaining the self defence laws in Wisconsin. Note at the 17 minute mark he makes the point that the object thrown by victim 1 may not be a gun but is still a weapon. At the same time another BLM protestor is discharging his handgun into the air.
The lawyer who makes this video says
"2 people basically discharging weapons right around Kyle as he is running away. If thats not self defence I don't know what is"

Ill take this guys professional opinion over the guy with 50k posts on an irish Internet forum.

I'm sure he makes a compelling argument but he practices in Arizona. It's an opinion from a place of eminence but its still an opinion, and he's not going to be the one defending Rittenhouse in court.

iebamm2580

Overheal wrote: »

Objectively yes of course, but that doesn't make what's been seen invalid either. And I'm not talking about the violence.

There's an easy track to take which is oppressive to free speech by needlessly criticizing free speech for being 'the wrong kind of speech' like people being apoplectic about the NFL/NBA kneeling/protests. I can't think of anything more humane than quietly kneeling while a song is played, yet exception is taken with that as well.

oh wow we agree on things, the kneeling taking the knee perfectly fine with i applaud them, but screaming in old peoples faces, no them particular individuals need to be called out for their behavior.

seannash

markodaly wrote: »

A caste system where blacks sit at the bottom, yet not 4 years ago there was a black president and all likelihood there will be a black female VP come Novemeber

Does.not.compute.

Malcolm Gladwell does a great piece on this. The first isn't the ultimate sign of a progressive country or change, its the second, third etc etc that tells you things have changed.

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/01-the-lady-vanishes

Its a really great podcast and well worth checking out.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's make a 100 euro charity bet about the conviction. Manslaughter/murder I win. Anything else. You win. If I win, you donate to BLM. Should be an easy win for one of your charities if you are so confident

Betting on the outcome of a trial where 2 people died, three families going through anguish right now. BLM is just a game to the idiots egging people on to loot, riot and plunder. Fcuking disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Overheal

iebamm2580 wrote: »

oh wow we agree on things, the kneeling taking the knee perfectly fine with i applaud them, but screaming in old peoples faces, no them particular individuals need to be called out for their behavior.

And it's free speech to criticize either kneeling or yelling both.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure what I'm allegedly twisting? They yelled and it was political speech. The left yells and it's animal behavior and scumbaggery?

They yelled in a council meeting regarding council business, namely the lockdown. They weren’t abusing, intimidating and taunting random people walking down the street.

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

They yelled in a council meeting regarding council business, namely the lockdown. They weren’t abusing, intimidating and taunting random people walking down the street.

No just abusing, intimidating and taunting legislators.

The people in DC weren't just random people, they were attendees to Trump's nuremurg-like rally which was itself a violation of the Hatch Act.

edjkdkjdhjkd

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that official BLM policy? Any link?

It's all over Twitter.


Raccoons are considered a racial slur in the states, this is used to get their message across in some sick sadistic fashion, countless incidents of raccoons being brutally murdered in the US over the past couple of months.

edjkdkjdhjkd

https://twitter.com/Lesebrille1/status/1298401749942906883

BloodBath

What kind of idiots chase someone carrying an AR. Illegally or not.

Police only up the road, let them handle it.

Needless deaths. The guy with the pistol has a lot to answer for as well.

Broadstone Bob

Overheal wrote: »

I'm sure he makes a compelling argument but he practices in Arizona. It's an opinion from a place of eminence but its still an opinion, and he's not going to be the one defending Rittenhouse in court.

lol. You don't even bother to listen to what he says. Classic cult follower

edjkdkjdhjkd

Ever noticed the commonality in the history of Anitfa/BLM protestors, when they end up doing something stupid like trying to kill a 17 year old and end up getting killed themselves, their history is revealed, almost always the case is they are a criminal of some sort with a sexual offense or just a straight up peado. Strange bunch indeed

Foxtrol

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7SooO03bJ8

Watch it all and his previous video explaining the self defence laws in Wisconsin. Note at the 17 minute mark he makes the point that the object thrown by victim 1 may not be a gun but is still a weapon. At the same time another BLM protestor is discharging his handgun into the air.
The lawyer who makes this video says
"2 people basically discharging weapons right around Kyle as he is running away. If thats not self defence I don't know what is"

Ill take this guys professional opinion over the guy with 50k posts on an irish Internet forum.

Did you even listen to the video? He said 'there are amazing arguments on both sides', he thinks it is self defense but that KR has 'an up hill battle'.

edjkdkjdhjkd

BloodBath wrote: »

What kind of idiots chase someone carrying an AR. Illegally or not.

Police only up the road, let them handle it.

Needless deaths. The guy with the pistol has a lot to answer for as well.

You have to laugh, that guy was an absolute coward, feigned surrender only to attempt to pull the pistol and kill the 17 year old, didn't work out too well for him.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

No just abusing, intimidating and taunting legislators.

The people in DC weren't just random people, they were attendees to Trump's nuremurg-like rally which was itself a violation of the Hatch Act.

What are you talking about? Where has DC come from? The picture you used was from Michigan. You have yourself tied in knots hahahaha.

Foxtrol

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7SooO03bJ8

Watch it all and his previous video explaining the self defence laws in Wisconsin. Note at the 17 minute mark he makes the point that the object thrown by victim 1 may not be a gun but is still a weapon. At the same time another BLM protestor is discharging his handgun into the air.
The lawyer who makes this video says
"2 people basically discharging weapons right around Kyle as he is running away. If thats not self defence I don't know what is"

Ill take this guys professional opinion over the guy with 50k posts on an irish Internet forum.

Do you also agree with your expert's assessment that the police shooting Blake was 'not even close to being justified' and 'this man should not have been shot in the back 7 times'?

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

No judge will breeze past him illegally carrying and transporting a weapon, nevermind his documented intentions from social media.

No he LL be punished for not having a permit

But not having a permit doesn't make one a murderer it's quite simple

Broadstone Bob

Foxtrol wrote: »

Did you even listen to the video? He said 'there are amazing arguments on both sides', he thinks it is self defense but that KR has 'an up hill battle'.

Did I say it wasn't?

BloodBath

edjkdkjdhjkd wrote: »

You have to laugh, that guy was an absolute coward, feigned surrender only to attempt to pull the pistol and kill the 17 year old, didn't work out too well for him.

I think he got the first chaser killed. He fired a shot while the AR guy was running from a chaser.

AR guy had his back to the shot. When he heard the pistol shot he turned and fired on the chaser.

Moral of the story is idiots shouldn't be allowed access to guns.

iebamm2580

iebamm2580 wrote: »

anybody yells in somebody face its animal behavior, no matter what side, right and left are both loony, thats why a centrist government is needed, you seem to be unable to see that both sides of this have many loons.

And you wish to treat them like animals.... That's far from centrist.

Broadstone Bob

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do you also agree with your expert's assessment that the police shooting Blake was 'not even close to being justified' and 'this man should not have been shot in the back 7 times'?

Yes I do. I'm not some idiot who cant think for himself and blindly follows whatever political movement he's attached himself too. Their is one or two like that on here.