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

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Mr Rittenhouse should have laid down his gun and allowed the mob to kick him to death.

He shouldn't have been there with a gun in the first place. Who brings a gun (apparently) to work as a community lifeguard? Bizarre thought process. Are pools that dangerous in the states? Is there sharks in them or something?

suicide_circus

Tell me how wrote: »

They probably weren't going to travel to his house looking for him though were they.
Or if he hadn't shot people then they might not have had reason to try to subdue him.

That didnt work out too well for them

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

According to Boards, Hillary Clinton was going to walk the last Presidential election.

But I can't really believe how thick the democrats have been over all this..if the protests had lasted a week they'd have been fine..

They've completely overplayed their hand..

Tell me how

suicide_circus wrote: »

That didnt work out too well for them

So, what would you suggest, people using guns in threatening behaviour should be allowed to do so because if you try to stop them, they might kill you?

Does that sound like a good approach for society?

Overheal

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

"militias who kill with impunity"

LoL don't let facts get in the way of your storytelling.
He has been arrested. This is the charge sheet....
https://www.mystateline.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/08/Rittenhouse.pdf

Although the evidence suggests it is a wrongful arrest but that would not suit your agenda

It would not at all be a wrongful arrest. A false arrest occurs when an officer arrests a suspect without any indication the suspect has committed a crime. In this case prosecutors brought charges forward, cops were by rule of law doing exactly what the law proscribes in arresting him.

He walked around Kenosha for hours after killing people, went home to sleep, and even can be seen interacting with officers who “really appreciate you” and hand him a bottle of water. These are difficult facts to acknowledge for the Pro-Rittenhouse movement, I know, but it happened. Even the Sheriff seemed pretty pissed when asked to answer for it: he didn’t, he just stormed out of the briefing.

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/kenosha-police-refuse-to-comment-on-cops-encouraging-militia-justify-giving-alleged-shooter-bottle-of-water/

“Our deputies would toss a water to anybody,”Beth said. “If someone came walking past, I don’t care if they’re a protester or who they are, they would pass water. We have cases. People have come to our command posts in this building. We have pallets of water and Gatorade.”

When pressed to explain further, Beth became combative and agitated.

“You’re asking me to tell you what one person did,” he said. “I can’t tell you that.”

Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis disputed the existence of video footage showing Kenosha law enforcement acting chummy with the armed men. When asked by a different reporter why the militia members were encouraged to be there by local law enforcement, he quickly shut down the line of inquiry.

“I don’t have any information that that existed,” Miskinis said.

The footage does exist, however, and does not appear to support the narrative advanced during the press conference.

“Hey, thank you guys,” one officer tells the militia members in a widely-viewed video. “You need water?”

Rittenhouse can then be seen walking up to obtain the water from the Lenco BearCat armored personnel carrier–apparently the only armed individual to take police up on their offer.

“We appreciate you guys, we really do,” an officer says as Rittenhouse catches the tossed bottle of water, per the video shot by Kristen Harris of TheRundownLive.

Miskinis was later pressed as to whether law enforcement appreciated the militia members’ being there for “back up.”

“We’re done talking,” he told the reporter.

What’s interesting about his assertion on the water is when BLM got near the police they weren’t offered water in the video, they were yelled at to say they were trespassing and ordered to leave the area.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

It's 0.05% of those who have protested.5 would be a huge number if it was in a crowd of 10. If 0.05% is a huge number, then just 9 police forces of the nearly 18,000 in the US having some sort of ingrained systemic practice of prejudice and racist behaviour is all it should take for people to be outraged about what is going on within them.

But those 0.05% are not "protesting" They are rioting looting and destroying their fellow citizens places of work and neighborhoods. And It only takes one ashole to burn down or loot a building. Which impacts on many hundreds of people- where that building is a shop or place of work for others.

The same are attacking people on the street who have shown no violence against as seen in Portland and many other cities.

And they know what they do means the police can do fuk all - because they will be further vilified by the apologists if they try and help those communities by arresting and detaining those criminals.

So ordinery people are now starting to fight back to protect these neighbourhoods - and once again the apologists attack them for doing so. Great style of protest eh?

But hey that's all OK for you. Its just a few ....

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

But I can't really believe how thick the democrats have been over all this..if the protests had lasted a week they'd have been fine..

They've completely overplayed their hand..

As compared to the Republicans who can't even be on message about masks.

mynamejeff

Tell me how wrote: »

So, what would you suggest, people using guns in threatening behaviour should be allowed to do so because if you try to stop them, they might kill you?

Does that sound like a good approach for society?

that's what you are suggesting for he looters

they had guns and were not just using threatening behaviour but attacking

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

As compared to the Republicans who can't even be on message about masks.

???..haha..yeah..

Tell me how

mynamejeff wrote: »

that's what you are suggesting for he looters

they had guns and were not just using threatening behaviour but attacking

I would suggest that anyone using guns in a threatening manner should be arrested and charged for doing so.

What do you think?

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

One word. Bollox. And nice protection but the only ones apparently getting upset are those loosing the argument in support of violence and thuggery.


Btw exactly which comment are you reading? Its not mine for sure.

The incident commented on was black protestors firing projectioes at those actually showing support for them

There were no "troops". Just mindless thugs.

That you chose to deny and ignore the violence of the protests against other races is telling.

You don't need to be "off somewhere" cheerleading the actions of violent criminals looting and wrecking fellow citizens neighborhoods. You seem to be doing just fine here tbh attempting to justify the destruction and looting going on like it's somehow excusable. News for ya - it's not.

Awful lot of false assumptions here: I certainly have not ignored violence. Nor have I supported violence or “thuggery.” Peaceful protesting is the right way forward and I hope and suspect those we’ve seen engaged in rioting will be brought through the full extent of the law.

What I’m getting from you is a lot of projection and I’m going to bow out from engaging you further because your accusations against me are baseless and it reads as you looking to project your emotions about the rioting onto anyone who comes across who believes black lives matter. I hope you find a proper outlet for that

mynamejeff

Tell me how wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone using guns in a threatening manner should be arrested and charged for doing so.

What do you think?

I think you are blind to the facts because of the agenda that your after swallowing and are trying to push here

but that's just what I think

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

I think you are blind to the facts because of the agenda that your after swallowing and are trying to push here

but that's just what I think

I don’t think what he asked was a difficult question.

Tell me how

mynamejeff wrote: »

I think you are blind to the facts because of the agenda that your after swallowing and are trying to push here

but that's just what I think

What? The facts that the people who killed Breonna Taylor and Tamir Rice have not been prosecuted for their crimes?

Or that Jacob Blake was surrouned by 3 cops who felt the need to shoot him 7 times in the back to try to stop him?

Or that Kyle Riffenhouse killed 2 people, approached police while armed with a weapon and was ignored and let go home?

Or that the US police system facilitates such behaviour?

Or that there is massive public sentiment calling for changes in this respect?

Or that Major Sporting Organisations are now backing calls for change?

Those facts is it?

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Is protesting illegal activity? You’re accusing the poster of “defending criminal activity” because those who have been rioting have been getting arrested and condemned separately. I’m not sure what attack you’re trying to make.

Did I say it was? Nope! Perhaps read the entire comment and not just the bits you wish to ...

It simple alright. It's evident from blm protests videos available online - that many of those involved in the movement are openly advocating and supporting attacks of non blacks, rioting including the looting and destruction of ordinary peoples property and directed attacks on neighbourhoods.

That you choose to try and defend such criminal activity on the basis of only a few (10,000) 'have been arrested" is truely deplorable 

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

Interesting to see your supporting violence as 'protesting'.

But hey it takes all sorts ...

Cody montana

suicide_circus wrote: »

Mr Rittenhouse should have laid down his gun and allowed the mob to kick him to death.

He shouldn’t be carrying a gun in the first place.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

I’m a bit depressed the comment above this got 12 thanks and this one got none.

Why in dogs name would you be "depressed" about the comment below unless you actually support such thuggery and violence instead of valid protest?

BattleCorp wrote: »

Attacking property isn't protesting.

Harrassing people isn't protesting.

Burning and looting isn't protesting.

Protesting is a legal right. Attacking, harrassing, burning and looting aren't legal activities.

suicide_circus

Tell me how wrote: »

So, what would you suggest, people using guns in threatening behaviour should be allowed to do so because if you try to stop them, they might kill you?

Does that sound like a good approach for society?

They should have called the cops. But obviously, cops bad, so that left them with little option but to chase down the man with the AR-15. It's not like they were the passengers on flight 93 trapped with terrorist about to crash the plane. They wanted a scalp, they played chicken and lost.

Tell me how

suicide_circus wrote: »

They should have called the cops. But obviously, cops bad, so that left them with little option but to chase down the man with the AR-15. It's not like they were the passengers on flight 93 trapped with terrorist about to crash the plane. They wanted a scalp, they played chicken and lost.

So, they people (police and civilian) who have received awards for running towards and attempting to stop terrorists and active shooters should not have done so?

Or the stories reporting their awards should have been accompanied with direction that people do not intervene and they these people were only playing chicken.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Why in dogs name would you be "depressed" about the comment below unless you actually support thuggery and violence instead of valid protest?

This post exemplifies why you won’t be engaged further. I have categorically stated I don’t support violence and thuggery yet you persist in labeling me as such.

Broadstone Bob

This is not going to do him any favours (if its him)

https://twitter.com/Commanderk59/status/1299733789531205632?s=20

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

This post exemplifies why you won’t be engaged further. I have categorically stated I don’t support violence and thuggery yet you persist in labeling me as such.

It must be because you're supporting violence and thuggery there for the last two months..

suicide_circus

Cody montana wrote: »

He shouldn’t be carrying a gun in the first place.

Well quite. But woulda shoulda coulda. At the point at which he was being chased by a mob (one with a handgun) he had a choice to outrun them (he failed), allow himself to be caught or defend himself. I know which i'd do. Obviously i wouldnt bring a gun anywhere but i dont live in that world.

Tell me how

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well quite. But woulda shoulda coulda. At the point at which he was being chased by a mob (one with a handgun) he had a choice to outrun them (he failed), allow himself to be caught or defend himself. I know which i'd do. Obviously i wouldnt bring a gun anywhere but i dont live in that world.

Do you think active shooters in school should be allowed to defend themselves?

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It must be because you're supporting violence and thuggery there for the last two months..

Not actually, and I have actively and categorically condemned violence and thuggery here today. So again, I’m unclear where these baseless personal attacks are coming from.

suicide_circus

Tell me how wrote: »

So, they people (police and civilian) who have received awards for running towards and attempting to stop terrorists and active shooters should not have done so?

Or the stories reporting their awards should have been accompanied with direction that people do not intervene and they these people were only playing chicken.

He only became an active shooter after they had chased him down. He wasnt just popping caps at random.

suicide_circus

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think active shooters in school should be allowed to defend themselves?

Strawman. He only shot people who were attacking him.

Tell me how

suicide_circus wrote: »

Strawman. He only shot people who were attacking him.

It's literally the exact same scenario.

He shot at people, they attacked him to try to make him stop, he killed them.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

This post exemplifies why you won’t be engaged further. I have categorically stated I don’t support violence and thuggery yet you persist in labeling me as such.

I'm sorry but your posts make no sense.

You defended those who attacked others who showed support for protestors. See previous comment on "Friendly fire"

And you claim to be depressed that the comment below recieved 12 thanks???.

What is it about this comment you disagree with then?

BattleCorp wrote: »

Attacking property isn't protesting.

Harrassing people isn't protesting.

Burning and looting isn't protesting.

Protesting is a legal right. Attacking, harrassing, burning and looting aren't legal activities.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

It must be because you're supporting violence and thuggery there for the last two months..

For the hundreds of posts which Overheal has made on this thread, I bet you wont find a single one which supports violence and thuggery.