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

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

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

Last I checked the 1st Amendment applies to the entire United States, not just DC or just Michigan.

Cupatae

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'?

He resisted arrest the officers did everything possible before shooting him, justified shooting he was reaching into his car.

Officer are at no fault job well done.

Jacobs attempt at suicide by cop failed

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that official BLM policy? Any link?

weldoninhio wrote: »

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.

Calm down, pal. Didn't realise you cared about the the people who were murdered the last couple of days.Though thou wanted them to be convicted and then pardoned?

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

Last I checked the 1st Amendment applies to the entire United States, not just DC or just Michigan.

My mistake. They were random people with a different political affiliation to the morons verbally attacking them.

iebamm2580

Deleted User wrote: »

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

yes you have missed a few posts i see, treat all equally regardless of side left or right.

Foxtrol

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.

Wasn't a smart move at all.

I wouldn't have trusted the Police, they were caught on camera thanking him earlier. If they did their jobs at that point 4 people wouldn't have their lives ruined

The Police chief nearly crapped his pants when it was put to him.

Overheal

Cupatae wrote: »

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

Again I am unclear why you keep bringing up permits as it's an open carry issue not a concealed carry issue. Permits are only relevant to the latter.

edjkdkjdhjkd

edjkdkjdhjkd wrote: »

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

Were they trying to kill the 17 year old? News to me.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

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.

In fairness, you've actively been celebrating it and said you hoped he is convicted so Trump can pardon him. So you taking a moral high ground isn't exactly credible...

Foxtrol

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Did I say it wasn't?

You selectively quoted the guy implying that he thought it was a slam dunk, when that is not what he believes at all.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, you've actively been celebrating it and said you hoped he is convicted so Trump can pardon him. So you taking a moral high ground isn't exactly credible...

Even though these aren't federal charges they are state charges. He can't be pardoned for them.

nullzero

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.

The first victim was shouting "shoot me n*gga" at him. You'd have to wonder why he'd engage in any of the behaviour he did. Such a hopelessly sad situation. Morons on both sides of this nonsense who could do with a good kick in the hole.

It will only get worse from here.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

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

Depends on the circumstances. Is it reasonable to think they intend to harm you with it, then maybe. Walking up with the gun slung over your shoulder, probably no threat. Walking up with the gun pointed at you, probably a significant threat.

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?

Well nobody knew it was illegal at that stage. Impossible for anybody to know that. Even Rittenhouse may not have known that he was breaking the law by having the gun so that's a non-argument.

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.

You don't have to lay a hand on KR for it to be assault. You don't have to let people injure you before you can use self-defence. The chase could be considered assault. The throwning of items at him certainly is assault.

Each time KR shot someone he was in the act of fleeing. He was trying to avoid conflict at that stage. If the protesters just let him flee, there would have been three less shootings.

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.

You could equally argue that his actions were necessary based on the threat. Maybe he needed to shoot 3 times to make sure he was safe.

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.

Not legally necessary to have his hands on him. Not always legally necessary to only shoot once either.

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.

That's the prosecution's job, to paint him in a negative light.

Look, I'm not excusing him from bringing a gun. He did that, he shouldn't have. That doesn't give the rioters an excuse to attack him though. Which they did by the way.

I know we disagree but I have doubts that he loses all legal rights to self defence because he has an illegal gun. Manic Moran pointed earlier to legislation that seems to support the fact that even though he shouldn't have the gun, it might be ok to use it for self defence.

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

I might disagree with some bits of legislation but ultimately it's no skin off my nose what the courts do in the States.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Even though these aren't federal charges they are state charges. He can't be pardoned for them.

Oh I know, more just to demonstrate Weldonhio's principles.

Foxtrol

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

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.

Great, not regularly we see consistency here. I however don't remember any posts from you condemning those cops or defending Blake. I'm sure you're just waiting for the right moment...

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

The first victim was shouting "shoot me n*gga" at him.

Does saying that justify him being killed? How?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

Does saying that justify him being killed? How?

Did I say it justified anything?

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Did I say it justified anything?

I never said you did, no, I asked the question so. Does it justify it? If not, why bring it up? What is the relevance to the killing? If it does, how?

statesaver

Deleted User wrote: »

Were they trying to kill the 17 year old? News to me.

The medic guy was raising his pistol at the 17 year old before he was shot in the arm. He was under threat and reacted accordingly

Broadstone Bob

Foxtrol wrote: »

Wasn't a smart move at all.

I wouldn't have trusted the Police, they were caught on camera thanking him earlier. If they did their jobs at that point 4 people wouldn't have their lives ruined

The Police chief nearly crapped his pants when it was put to him.

How about if the cops had let him go back to the auto shop after victim 1 (white) was yelling "shoot me n*****, shoot me n*****" to the group of libertarians at the gas station?

They denied his request (see Ruptly footage) to leave the area when protestors (also armed) were starting to get aggressive. He then walked back and was next seen on video running AWAY from victim 1.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh I know, more just to demonstrate Weldonhio's principles.

You attack someone don’t cry when they defend themselves. But betting on a trial, any trial, is scummy behaviour.

BloodBath

Overheal wrote: »

Does saying that justify him being killed? How?

Pistol guy fired a shot while the chase was happening just before AR guy turned and fired on the chaser. He could have thought the chaser fired the shot.

Don't think any of them should have had guns but what kind of moron chases and attempts to assault someone carrying an AR?

statesaver

statesaver wrote: »

The medic guy was raising his pistol at the 17 year old before he was shot in the arm. He was under threat and reacted accordingly

Evidence of this or are we back to victim blaming?

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

I never said you did, no, I asked the question so. Does it justify it? If not, why bring it up? What is the relevance to the killing?

It's relevant that he said "shoot me n*gga" to somebody holding an assault rifle and then chased that person and threw something at them.

Call me old fashioned, but if I see someone holding an assault rifle who clearly has issues with the cause I'm defending I wouldn't goad them to shoot me and then chase after them throwing things them.

Shooting him wasn't a proportional response and isn't justifiable, but logic dictates that the young lad with the assault rifle may be better left to his own devices.

I find it necessary to point out that I initially expressed disdain for the actions of people on BOTH sides of this situation. That context is important and I'd appreciate if you could reflect that when quoting me going forward.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

You attack someone don’t cry when they defend themselves. But betting on a trial, any trial, is scummy behaviour.

You defended yourself by suggesting that the president pardon a convicted murderer? Strange mind you have there, a little unhinged really.

Gerry Hatrick

nullzero wrote: »

The first victim was shouting "shoot me n*gga" at him. You'd have to wonder why he'd engage in any of the behaviour he did. Such a hopelessly sad situation. Morons on both sides of this nonsense who could do with a good kick in the hole.

It will only get worse from here.

Yes indeed. When Trump wins this election as I think he will it will get a hell of a lot worse.

Broadstone Bob

Foxtrol wrote: »

Great, not regularly we see consistency here. I however don't remember any posts from you condemning those cops or defending Blake. I'm sure you're just waiting for the right moment...

Another example of a cult follower unable to think for himself. If I don't agree with you on one thing then I must be on the other teams side and so disagree with you on everything. You're as bad as the MAGA nut jobs.

nullzero

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

Yes indeed. When Trump wins this election as I think he will it will get a hell of a lot worse.

Whoever wins the election, this nonsense isn't going anywhere sadly.

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

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.

Funny, they're 'people' when you need them to be, and now you finally mention families in anguish, when earlier you were happy to write them off as ex-cons and pedo's etc.

Just to make an admonition of betting, clearly though you're not upset about the death of the victims so this looks like a naked attempt to simply attack a user you dislike.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Your conviction doesn’t disappear once you’ve done your time. All 3 are, were, ex-cons.

weldoninhio wrote: »

So the paedo doesn’t chase after him for a good 10-20 yards and throw something at him??

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances. Is it reasonable to think they intend to harm you with it, then maybe. Walking up with the gun slung over your shoulder, probably no threat. Walking up with the gun pointed at you, probably a significant threat.

Well nobody knew it was illegal at that stage. Impossible for anybody to know that. Even Rittenhouse may not have known that he was breaking the law by having the gun so that's a non-argument.

You don't have to lay a hand on KR for it to be assault. You don't have to let people injure you before you can use self-defence. The chase could be considered assault. The throwning of items at him certainly is assault.

Each time KR shot someone he was in the act of fleeing. He was trying to avoid conflict at that stage. If the protesters just let him flee, there would have been three less shootings.

You could equally argue that his actions were necessary based on the threat. Maybe he needed to shoot 3 times to make sure he was safe.

Not legally necessary to have his hands on him. Not always legally necessary to only shoot once either.

That's the prosecution's job, to paint him in a negative light.

Look, I'm not excusing him from bringing a gun. He did that, he shouldn't have. That doesn't give the rioters an excuse to attack him though. Which they did by the way.

I know we disagree but I have doubts that he loses all legal rights to self defence because he has an illegal gun. Manic Moran pointed earlier to legislation that seems to support the fact that even though he shouldn't have the gun, it might be ok to use it for self defence.

I might disagree with some bits of legislation but ultimately it's no skin off my nose what the courts do in the States.

At this stage we're going around in circles on this specific case. I think we can both agree that there are arguments on both sides and it isn't as cut and dry as some here believe it to be.

Given your belief in self defense and the complete crickets from other self defense advocates on this thread when I originally posed the question, I'd like to ask you directly how many people you believe the person in the van would get away with shooting an killing in the second video and it be deemed self defense? How many bullets would be acceptable to fire into the crowd attacking the van?

Foxtrol wrote: »

I have a question for the pro self defense crew.

In this situation, are the people inside this van entitled to shoot to kill every one of these Proud Boys and White Supremacists that are attacking the van? They are far more cornered and outnumbered than Rittenhouse was and they even tried non-lethal defense first.

https://twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1297273725939675136?s=20