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

Overheal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That would explain your posting style so.

What do you mean?

antix80

Overheal wrote: »

Sure when they're white it's always "they've been through enough." "Brock Turner has been through enough. We need to think about his future."

All people think about with a black person is their past and how to lock them up.

Turner served a prison sentence and is a registered sex offender for life.

That's his past.if he commits another crime he'll be in a lot of trouble.if he resists arrest and reaches for a weapon he might even be shot.

But please, continue ... so only black people are locked up?

Overheal

antix80 wrote: »

Turner served a prison sentence and is a registered sex offender for life.

That's his past.if he commits another crime he'll be in a lot of trouble.if he resists arrest and reaches for a weapon he might even be shot.

But please, continue ... so only black people are locked up?

That was a softball and the answer was not to defend Brock Turner or the incredibly lenient terms of his sentence for raping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster

antix80

Overheal wrote: »

That was a softball and the answer was not to defend Brock Turner or the incredibly lenient terms of his sentence for raping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster

But you said "All people think about with a black person is their past and how to lock them up.".

Turner didn't have a past and he was locked up. It's a bad example.

What term would you have given? And if he were black, what term would you have given for the same circumstances?

Tell me how

antix80 wrote: »

Blake is handcuffed because he's not in jail and he's facing justice for a crime.

Kyle Rittenhouse is in jail and he's also facing justice.

Blake resisted arrest and reached into his car which contained a weapon.

Rittenhouse approached police with his hands up and complied with their orders (including to get off the road)

If Rittenhouse approached police with his hands on his gun and ignored orders the outcome would have been much different.

Similarly if Blake complied with police he wouldn't have ended up like a human beanbag full of lead.

Rittenhouse was armed approaching police in a tense situation. They not only didn't shoot him, they didn't even arrest him despite bystanders calling out that he shot people.

The difference in how police perceived each person is very obvious.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, I think I know exactly what you mean.

And the fact is those people wouldn't have been on that Street but for the active rioting and looting of the blm movement.

Does any of this justify such violence? - no it does not. Where the blm movement is supposedly protesting against police brutality- yet there and elsewhere are oppenly attacking and looting the places of work and residence of their fellow citizens. How's that work?

In a country with a right to bear arms (whether we like that fact or otherwise) - it would appear the blm are actively looking for such confrontations. They certainly are not above using firearms as demonstrated by the video of the night in question and those involved in the violent protest.

Tell me how wrote: »

...
Kyle Riffenhouse armed himself, drove across state lines, inserted himself in to a protest and killed two people.

If you genuinely want to see the protests stop, you should hope he is charged and tried accordingly.

You have to be having a laugh. The riots / protests were taking place long before this incident. People of all races and their livelihoods / business have been targeted.

These "protests" are clearly looking to draw out others to further their own aims of violence. If you fail to see that - then that's not anyone else's issue.

The blm movement claim to "work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people".

From the rioting and looting and the attacks on their fellow citizens in the US - that is clearly complete and utter horse manure.

So tell me - how would you feel when a mob rocks up to your door and attacks you or you family or loots your business. You go to stand at the side and cheer them as well?

drunkmonkey911

I think this short clip really highlights the issue with the rioting.

LINK: youtube.com/watch?v=9jCpUMUezzY
(new user, can't post videos, it shows protestors smash the windows of people who were trying to show support for BLM)

Much of it is just indiscriminate acts of violence. It's all well and good to support from afar what the BLM riots are supposed to be trying to achieve, until you suddenly find yourself being victimized by it.

It's surprising to me that many BLM supporters have gone from disassociating the BLM movement from the riots to actively defending the riots as being necessary to achieve the change that BLM seeks.

gozunda

Fixed

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

I think this short clip really highlights the issue with the rioting.

LINK: - see below


Much of it is just indiscriminate acts of violence. It's all well and good to support from afar what the BLM riots are supposed to be trying to achieve, until you suddenly find yourself being victimized by it.

It's surprising to me that many BLM supporters have gone from disassociating the BLM movement from the riots to actively defending the riots as being necessary to achieve the change that BLM seeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jCpUMUezzY

antix80

Tell me how wrote: »

Rittenhouse was armed approaching police in a tense situation. They not only didn't shoot him, they didn't even arrest him despite bystanders calling out that he shot people.

The difference in how police perceived each person is very obvious.

He wasn't masked, his hands were up, and he was clearly not engaged in rioting.

By the way, those cops were just trying to contain the rioters. If they were policing, they'd probably have arrested vandals, looters, arsonists and maybe even those carrying improvised weapons - and anyone breaking the curfew without a good reason (eg to protect property) . They'd have protected buildings and not allow them to be vandalised.

Danzy

gozunda wrote: »

Fixed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jCpUMUezzY

He really thinks that they give a **** whose side he is on.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Fixed

Yep a dumb 'friendly fire' incident. I could see how though, white frat bros in what looks like a fairly upscale bachelor pad enjoying there lives while people are outside protesting for lives and police reform, making gestures that could be interpreted as dripping sarcasm.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

And the fact is those people wouldn't have been on that Street but for the active rioting and looting of the blm movement.

Does any of this justify such violence? - no it does not. Where the blm movement is supposedly protesting against police brutality- yet there and elsewhere are oppenly attacking and looting the places of work and residence of their fellow citizens. How's that work?

In a country with a right to bear arms (whether we like that fact or otherwise) - it would appear the blm are actively looking for such confrontations. They certainly are not above using firearms as demonstrated by the video of the night in question and those involved in the violent protest.



You have to be having a laugh. The riots / protests were taking place long before this incident. People of all races and their livelihoods / business have been targeted.

These "protests" are clearly looking to draw out others to further their own aims of violence. If you fail to see that - then that's not anyone else's issue.

The blm movement claim to "work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people".

From the rioting and looting and the attacks on their fellow citizens in the US - that is clearly complete and utter horse manure.

So tell me - how would you feel when a mob rocks up to your door and attacks you or you family or loots your business. You go to stand at the side and cheer them as well?

And another stereotype joins the conversation. Given your views on the other thread, beyond this comment, I will not be engaging with you on this one.
I am 100% sure you have nothing to add beyond the same type of regressive hyperbole I am familiar with.

As I and others have stated here, this current phase of protests (over 6 years) at this point is not too dissimilar to the process by which previous advances were brought about in terms of how black people were treated. I have no doubt but that many of those against the protests now, would have been against the calls for change at the time of civil rights marches of the 60's.

Change is coming, it won't be rapid, or a complete and perfect solution but it is coming.

antix80

gozunda wrote: »

Fixed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jCpUMUezzY

I love this video. Turkeys voting for xmas.. It's up there with the snow is the "perfect texture for running" video

Reminds me of an old bbc skit where an Indian family got a brick through their window with a note attached "pakis out" and started saying "too right, Pakistanis out"

Tell me how

antix80 wrote: »

He wasn't masked, his hands were up, and he was clearly not engaged in rioting.

By the way, those cops were just trying to contain the rioters. If they were policing, they'd probably have arrested vandals, looters, arsonists and maybe even those carrying improvised weapons - and anyone breaking the curfew without a good reason (eg to protect property) . They'd have protected buildings and not allow them to be vandalised.

He had just shot 2 people and the police were aware that people had been shot, and they either gave him a pass or were wilfully ignorant that he may have been involved.

Neither is a good look for the police.

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

Yep a dumb 'friendly fire' incident. I could see how though, white frat bros in what looks like a fairly upscale bachelor pad enjoying there lives while people are outside protesting for lives and police reform, making gestures that could be interpreted as dripping sarcasm.

The people protesting tend to be quite well to do.

antix80

Tell me how wrote: »

He had just shot 2 people and the police were aware that people had been shot, and they either gave him a pass or were wilfully ignorant that he may have been involved.

Neither is a good look for the police.

Or option 3, they knew there were shots fired and saw a young man escaping gunfire.

If he was guilty of a crime it would make more sense for him to ditch the weapon and disappear into the crowd.

Tell me how

Danzy wrote: »

The people protesting tend to be quite well to do.

If this is the case? What does that tell you?

Tell me how

antix80 wrote: »

Or option 3, they knew there were shots fired and saw a young man escaping gunfire.

If he was guilty of a crime it would make more sense for him to ditch the weapon and disappear into the crowd.

Why would he when he felt safe amongst the police?

drunkmonkey911

Overheal wrote: »

Yep a dumb 'friendly fire' incident. I could see how though, white frat bros in what looks like a fairly upscale bachelor pad enjoying there lives while people are outside protesting for lives and police reform, making gestures that could be interpreted as dripping sarcasm.

You know you can support BLM without having to justify these kinds of acts of violence and vandalism. What happened in that video was completely uncalled for.

antix80

Tell me how wrote: »

Why would he when he felt safe amongst the police?

There's mind reading going on here.

Anyway, he was safer among police than among rioters who drew weapons on him and tried to disarm him. So in that respect you're right

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

And another stereotype joins the conversation. Given your views on the other thread, beyond this comment, I will not be engaging with you on this one.
I am 100% sure you have nothing to add beyond the same type of regressive hyperbole I am familiar with. As I and others have stated here, this current phase of protests (over 6 years) at this point is not too dissimilar to the process by which previous advances were brought about in terms of how black people were treated. I have no doubt but that many of those against the protests now, would have been against the calls for change at the time of civil rights marches of the 60's.Change is coming, it won't be rapid, or a complete and perfect solution but it is coming.

Well there again with the well worn ding dong that where you disagree with others - that everyone else is wrong and you are right lol.
Perhaps look to your opinions before judging others by your own standards Tell me how.

That aside- You clearly know nothing of the black rights movement in the US if you believe the lie that the current protests has any comparison with the protests of the 1960s.

Don't believe me no? How about the opinion of a civil rights activist of that era? Perhaps you think she is a sterotype as well? According to your own warped logic she too must also have been "against the calls for change" as you put it!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/24/i-was-a-civil-rights-activist-in-the-1960s-but-its-hard-for-me-to-get-behind-black-lives-matter/

...at protests today, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate activists from the mob actors who burn and loot. The demonstrations are peppered with hate speech, profanity, ..

I see you didn't bother answering the question asked in my last comment. Please do so.

How would you feel when a mob rocks up to your door and attacks you or you family or loots your business. You go to stand at the side and cheer them as well?

Tokyo

Mod: Cupatae - don't post in the thread again.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

The people protesting tend to be quite well to do.

How do you mean?

Overheal

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

You know you can support BLM without having to justify these kinds of acts of violence and vandalism. What happened in that video was completely uncalled for.

Then you didn't get what I was saying at all: which was understanding how the incident occurred, not condoning it.

If the discussion was of army forces having a FF incident we would discuss how it happened and nobody would be getting accused of celebrating or supporting the fact that it happened.

Broadstone Bob

antix80 wrote: »

There's mind reading going on here.

Anyway, he was safer among police than among rioters who drew weapons on him and tried to disarm him. So in that respect you're right

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-working-lifeguard-kenosha-day-shooting-went-clean-vandalism-school-work/

His defence team have released a statement on the events.
Turns out he works in Kenosha and did not bring the gun across state lines.
He spent the day working as a lifeguard, volunteering to clean graffiti from a local high school and helping locals protect their property from looters and arsonists after 2 previous nights of rioting - what a monster.

hynesie08

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-working-lifeguard-kenosha-day-shooting-went-clean-vandalism-school-work/

His defence team have released a statement on the events.
Turns out he works in Kenosha and did not bring the gun across state lines.
He spent the day working as a lifeguard, volunteering to clean graffiti from a local high school and helping locals protect their property from looters and arsonists after 2 previous nights of rioting - what a monster.

Wow, I've completely changed my opinion on the little psycho after reading that completely unbiased report........

So how did he acquire the gun??

Broadstone Bob

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-working-lifeguard-kenosha-day-shooting-went-clean-vandalism-school-work/

His defence team have released a statement on the events.
Turns out he works in Kenosha and did not bring the gun across state lines.
He spent the day working as a lifeguard, volunteering to clean graffiti from a local high school and helping locals protect their property from looters and arsonists after 2 previous nights of rioting - what a monster.

I've also read a few arguments from lawyers that as a 17 year old in Wisconsin he was allowed to carry a rifle. But its hard to tell whats genuine opinion with so many hard right and hard left fanatics around

Broadstone Bob

hynesie08 wrote: »

Wow, I've completely changed my opinion on the little psycho after reading that completely unbiased report........

So how did he acquire the gun??

As opposed to the other completely fact based unbiased reports you have posted for us all to read?

Overheal

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

As opposed to the other completely fact based unbiased reports you have posted for us all to read?

I don’t know what other outlet you’re referring to but TGP is pure ass. They routinely get articles screened as fraudulent reporting by factcheckers (and, subsequently, a review of those facts).

All I know at this time is the Rittenhouse attorney reportedly stated that the weapon originated in Wisconsin and was borrowed. Seems like an awfully convenient loophole, but I’ll be interested to hear how they establish that argument in discovery. If it was borrowed within state lines even when Rittenhouse clearly owned his own firearms just speaks further volumes to premeditation.

Overheal

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

I've also read a few arguments from lawyers that as a 17 year old in Wisconsin he was allowed to carry a rifle. But its hard to tell whats genuine opinion with so many hard right and hard left fanatics around

The defense can’t have it both ways: “he’s just a child” to downplay murder-one charges, and “basically an adult, anyway, so of course he was allowed to open carry a long gun”