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

BorneTobyWilde

So crazy, all these molly Mormons who '' follow Jesus'' are defending Kyle. All saying he was right, and how he will walk free.
What a messed up country when those who '' follow Jesus'' are the ones cheering on the White Supremacists

drunkmonkey911

Deleted User wrote: »

It is utterly bizarre that people think that GF's fentanyl levels killed him rather than the neck restraint. Also, the negligence to restrain somebody by the neck who you suspect of taking a respiratory depressant is a stark reminder how little the officer valued GF's life.

Has it been confirmed from the investigations/autopsy that it was manner in which GF was restrained that killed him?

drunkmonkey911

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

Has it been confirmed from the investigations/autopsy that it was manner in which GF was restrained that killed him?

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I didn't say they were more at fault, but they were certainly a factor. As was seen in the case of Tony Timpa, it's likely the compression of Floyd's chest that was more deletrious than the knee across his neck.

Buddy

If they hadn't restrained him without any regard for his life that day. He wouldn't have died.

drunkmonkey911

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So crazy, all these molly Mormons who '' follow Jesus'' are defending Kyle. All saying he was right, and how he will walk free.
What a messed up country when those who '' follow Jesus'' are the ones cheering on the White Supremacists

If you're implying that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, can you substantiate the claim?

AbusesToilets

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If they hadn't restrained him without any regard for his life that day. He wouldn't have died.

Again, it's a situation in which Floyd's actions drove the situation. I would certainly say the police, Chauvin certainly, displayed something of a callous indifference. However, they can argue they were employing a technique approved by their department. A similar problem exampled in the death of Tony Timpa. Floyd claiming he couldn't breathe prior to being placed on the ground complicated things.

gozunda

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So crazy, all these molly Mormons who '' follow Jesus'' are defending Kyle. All saying he was right, and how he will walk free.
What a messed up country when those who '' follow Jesus'' are the ones cheering on the White Supremacists

So you are calling the kid a "white supremacist"?

The thing is but for the looting and violence of the blm - most likley the shootings wouldn't have taken place. He certainly wasn't alone in having a firearm - with blm members found to have first fired shots.

Does any of this excuse whst happened? No it does not. But if you are going to call the kid a "white supremacist" then we need to label those who attacked him "black supremacists". That seem OK to to you?

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, it's a situation in which Floyd's actions drove the situation. I would certainly say the police, Chauvin certainly, displayed something of a callous indifference. However, they can argue they were employing a technique approved by their department. A similar problem exampled in the death of Tony Timpa. Floyd claiming he couldn't breathe prior to being placed on the ground complicated things.

We have a TMVA procedure in acute hospitals in Ireland. It's easy enough to do without endangering a person's life. Why they didn't apply it? One can only hazard a guess.....

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We have a TMVA procedure in acute hospitals in Ireland. It's easy enough to do without endangering a person's life. Why they didn't apply it? One can only hazard a guess.....

Probably because he wasn't in an acute hospital whilst he was going berserk resisting arrest

And no that does not excuse what happened either ...

Manic Moran

After doing more digging, it seems quite possible that Rittenhouse was legally carrying the rifle.

The exceptions to the offense of 'carrying a weapon under age 18' are in Wisconsin statute 948.60. Astonishingly called "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18". https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

Section 2a. "(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor"

That's about as far as most analysis on the matter goes.

"Dangerous weapon" is defined in Section 1. Any firearm, taser, stun-gun, brass knuckles or similar, shuriken, nunchuks and some other martial arts things.

Great. The problem is that nobody seems to be going down to section 3c, which is a specific exception for rifles and shotguns. If he had a pistol or shuriken he'd be hosed, but if armed (it uses the word 'armed') with a rifle or shotgun, in order to fall afoul of section 2a, not only must he be under 18, he must also be in violation of any one of three listed laws.

The first is if he's armed with a short-barrelled shotgun or rifle, which are commonly restricted weapons in the US. He is not, so he does not fall afoul of that particular law.
The second is if he's under 16. (It's a slew of regulations covering required adult supervision, participation in training courses etc). He is not, so he does not fall afoul of that.
The third is the only possible violation, and it is unfortunately very badly written. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/VIII/593
It is a requirement that in order to obtain a hunting license, a minor needs to have completed an approved course of instruction.

The problem is that the act of carrying a rifle has nothing to do with getting a hunting license, and there is nothing in the legislation saying that the rifle exemption only applies in the case of hunting activity.

There are three different intents I can come up with that the legislation had in mind when they wrote the law, two of which would grant him exemption, either of which can be interpreted straight from the legislation. The third, which would result in his being illegally armed requires an inference not written the law (i.e. that the exemption only applies when in the act of hunting).

A court is almost certain to go by 'what is written in the law', not 'what we think they really meant'.

drunkmonkey911

Deleted User wrote: »

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf

Thanks. I've seen some recent statements regarding another autopsy report saying the were no physical signs of asphyxiation...I don't really know what to make of that or if it changes anything. But at this point it does seem the cause has been concluded as the pressure to the neck.



I suppose the question then is, what about this situation suggests that it was race based other than the fact that the officer was white and GF was black?

gozunda

Manic Moran wrote: »

After doing more digging, it seems quite possible that Rittenhouse was legally carrying the rifle...

.

Thanks for that.

Just watched the video you posted earlier by the lawyer giving his opinion on the incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE

This is the Additional Synopsis taken from linked video

Kyle Rittenhouse - Let's talk facts in the Kenosha Wisconsin shooting from a Lawyer's standpoint

Published on Aug 28, 2020

A lot of people feel some type of way about Kyle bringing an AR-15 with him to a protest/riot and I get it, why bring a rifle to a peaceful protest? Well sometimes protest turn into riots and an AR-15 is one of the most effective self-defense tools in the world. That’s why it’s the most popular rifle in the country.

I know seeing someone carrying an AR makes some people uncomfortable, but I also can’t blame someone for wanting the best means of protection when they’re going into what could turn out to be a dangerous and volatile situation.
Also, let’s be clear, there were a lot of protestors and rioters with guns at this protest/riot.

However, there is the issue of legality. Kyle is 17 and In Wisconsin, any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

So, on the surface, Kyle was carrying his rifle illegally, but Wisconsin law has an exception that says that law only applies if the person has a short-barreled rifle or shotgun or the person does not have a certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. Kyle may or may not have this, I don’t know and this exception may only apply in cases of hunting, it’s not very clear, but my gut tells me, Wisconsin wasn’t trying to carve out an exception that let minors open carry during a protest/riot and the exception was more about hunting.

Then there are people saying Kyle shouldn’t have been there because there was an 8pm curfew and they’d be right, but that also means the protestors and rioters shouldn’t have been there either. I’m not really a fan of any 17-year-old being at a protest/riot. I know 40-year- olds who don’t have the mental maturity to deal with the dynamic of a riot much less an impressionable 17-year-old, but if we send 18-year-olds to fight people in other countries, so then can I really say anything to a 17-year-old who wants to help protect business and people in his country.

There are a lot of people making a big deal about the fact that Kyle drove in from Antioch Illinois. The drive from Antioch to Kenosha is 30 min. That’s shorter than a lot of people’s daily commute. Anthony Huber the kid with the skateboard who was shot and killed, lived in Silver Lake, that’s a 30 min drive to Kenosha. Gaige Grosskreutz, lived in West Allis and that’s a 49 min drive to Kenosha. So, it’s safe to say they all should have probably stayed home that day, but none of them did so here we are.

In Wisconsin, Deadly force can only be used if a person reasonably believes that such force is required to avoid death or great bodily harm. There is no duty to retreat unless you were the initial aggressor. If you are the initial aggressor, you can only use deadly force if you reasonably believe all means to escape great bodily injury or death has been exhausted.

I describe the events with video in great detail from a lawyer’s point of view in this video. Yes, the people attacking Kyle think he just murdered someone, but they are attacking him. They are not defending themselves from him to prevent death or great bodily injury, so under the letter of the law, they are the aggressor at that moment.

Because they have a disparity of force (ie way more people than him) and weapons or objects being used as weapons, Kyle is legally justified to use deadly force to stop them. So as a lawyer, unless some new info comes out that shows Kyle was the initial aggressor and he had a way to retreat, legally I don’t think he will be charged with murder.

Yes, Kyle probably broke the law in that he was a minor open carrying a firearm. However, Kyle breaking that law does not mean he forfeits his right to self-defense if it is justified. This is similar to a situation in which I’m a felon and I have a gun that I use to protect myself during a home invasion. I’m still going to jail, but not for murder.

It’ll be for me having a gun as a felon because my use of deadly force with that gun even though it was illegal for me to have, was justified. In this case from the looks of the information up to this point, legally, he was justified. Because of this, I think Kyle is going to plead to the lesser charge of open carrying a firearm as a minor, but I don’t see him getting convicted of murder.

Tell me how

I have said on a number of time on this thread over the last weeks that I suspect that many of those arguing against the BLM movement now would have been arguing against the civil rights marches and particularly the efforts MLK during the 60's had they and Boards been around to discuss it then.
This tweet shows just how some chose to portray his efforts at that time.

https://twitter.com/CDRosa/status/1299775027966087169

History is repeating. And hopefully this period will ultimately result in progress just as that one did.

drunkmonkey911

gozunda wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Just watched the video you posted earlier by the lawyer giving his opinion on the incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE

Excellent video. Very refreshing to listen to someone with an objective viewpoint based on facts and evidence.

Tell me how

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

Excellent video. Very refreshing to listen to someone with an objective viewpoint based on facts and evidence.

Do you really think a 2A rights enthusiast and owner of a gun business is going to be objective?

drunkmonkey911

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you really think a 2A rights enthusiast and owner of a gun business is going to be objective?

As I said, he based his views purely on facts and evidence. What more can you ask for than that?

Tell me how

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

As I said, he based his views purely on facts and evidence. What more can you ask for than that?

Facts and evidence according to someone dedicated to minimising any conversation which may turn to suggestions about more gun control.

drunkmonkey911

Tell me how wrote: »

Facts and evidence according to someone dedicated to minimising any conversation which may turn to suggestions about more gun control.

He is citing videos, laws and interviews. The facts or evidence are not according to him, they are known truths.



What does not appear to be a fact however is your allegation that he is "dedicated to minimizing any conversation which may turn to suggestions about more gun control". Can you substantiate the claim?

Tell me how

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

He is citing videos, laws and interviews. The facts or evidence are not according to him, they are known truths.



What does not appear to be a fact however is your allegation that he is "dedicated to minimizing any conversation which may turn to suggestions about more gun control". Can you substantiate the claim?

Check his bio.

drunkmonkey911

Tell me how wrote: »

Check his bio.

On his YouTube homepage? He's a gun enthusiast who owns a firearm related company. But it doesn't affect anything in the video. In fact even though there may be a technicality where Rittenhouse was legally in possession of the gun he acknowledges that would not have been the intention of the law. Can you cite anything in the video that is not fact/evidence based?

Manic Moran

There are no two ways that he's a gun rights activist. He is also a lawyer, but I believe Texas, not Wisconsin.

In this video, however, he seems to do a good job of distinguishing between fact, such as "He was hit by a skateboard", opinion such as "He shouldn't have been there in the first place", and perspective "As far as the second two victims knew, they probably felt that they were trying to legitimately stop a killer". Anything he states as 'fact', he either cites a police report or video.

Tell me how

Significant news coming from the NFL earlier this evening given how central it was with Colin Kapernick and early attention being drawn to police brutality.

https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/1299810064585445377

Overheal

Can definitely see how he owning a firearms business undermines his objectivity here. One could hardly say his take is objective.

Tell me how

Do people think that this guys views would have influenced his attitude when performing his duties?

https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/1299891708235313152

Broadstone Bob

Tell me how wrote: »

I have said on a number of time on this thread over the last weeks that I suspect that many of those arguing against the BLM movement now would have been arguing against the civil rights marches and particularly the efforts MLK during the 60's had they and Boards been around to discuss it then.
This tweet shows just how some chose to portray his efforts at that time.

https://twitter.com/CDRosa/status/1299775027966087169

History is repeating. And hopefully this period will ultimately result in progress just as that one did.

LoL You cannot compare the BLM movement to the civil rights movement.
America in 2020 has no racist laws and have recently had 8 years under a black president.
There is no equivalent to MLK now. nobody comes close to him.
This is the just the standard "you're a racist if you don't agree with me "line".
The problem as I see it now is all the far left fanatics are trapped in their social media bubbles. They think everything is horrifically biased towards black people as thats all they see on whatever platform they are looking at. They think the more outraged and offended they are the more justified they are. Yes America has serious issues (gun access, economic inequality, badly trained police etc) but that does not mean everyone who disagrees with you would have been against MLK or fighting with the confederates in the civil war.
Todays SJW seem to genuinely think the BLM protests will be looked back on like the civil rights movement so everything in their mind is righteous. Its BS.

Every occupation has "bad apples". To argue that, Chris Rock famously said "what about pilots? you don't see pilots deciding they don't want to land" - well evidently some pilots get depressed and don't want to land and now pilots cannot be left alone in cockpits.
Yes there is plenty of racists in America but on both sides and BLM protests are not helping to fix it in fact they are deepening the divide each week.
Hopefully Biden wins and the violence stops but I have a horrible feeling he won't due to all the violence at the BLM protests. A lot of people are making a lot of money on the internet pushing hate on both sides and this needs to be looked at more as a cause for everyones outrages

Tell me how

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

LoL You cannot compare the BLM movement to the civil rights movement.
America in 2020 has no racist laws and have recently had 8 years under a black president.
There is no equivalent to MLK now. nobody comes close to him.
This is the just the standard "you're a racist if you don't agree with me "line".
The problem as I see it now is all the far left fanatics are trapped in their social media bubbles. They think everything is horrifically biased towards black people as thats all they see on whatever platform they are looking at. They think the more outraged and offended they are the more justified they are. Yes America has serious issues (gun access, economic inequality, badly trained police etc) but that does not mean everyone who disagrees with you would have been against MLK or fighting with the confederates in the civil war.
Todays SJW seem to genuinely think the BLM protests will be looked back on like the civil rights movement so everything in their mind is righteous. Its BS.

Why do you use the word SJW like it is an insult?

The people who this are generally referred to in this way are advocating for fair and equal treatment for all in society, or meaningful action in terms of the climate. Are you against these ideals?

And also, what do you mean when you talk about people trapped in their social media bubbles? I am living in America and so too is at least one other person here who is vocal in support of the BLM movement? Where are you getting the information which is helping you to form your views?

Tell me how

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Every occupation has "bad apples". To argue that, Chris Rock famously said "what about pilots? you don't see pilots deciding they don't want to land" - well evidently some pilots get depressed and don't want to land and now pilots cannot be left alone in cockpits.
Yes there is plenty of racists in America but on both sides and BLM protests are not helping to fix it in fact they are deepening the divide each week.
Hopefully Biden wins and the violence stops but I have a horrible feeling he won't due to all the violence at the BLM protests. A lot of people are making a lot of money on the internet pushing hate on both sides and this needs to be looked at more as a cause for everyones outrages

I agree that it should be better for the country if Biden wins. It won't fix everything, but at least the antagonist currently in the White House won't have the same platform.

https://twitter.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/1299791400184295424

Worth repeating that Kyle Riffenhouse was front row at a Trump rally. I expect that the words Trump has used as shown in this video were in his mind on his way to Kenosha.

Biafranlivemat

`

Overheal wrote: »

So to be clear you first posted a 'hey look at this photo I found' post, and now you're claiming to be the photographer. Alright,

How do you know the ethnicity of all of the staff? Did you hire them? Did you ask them? I especially say that because we had a Hawaiian employee one time who was perpetually mistaken for Mexican; people are too dumb to tell the difference. How do you?

Do you have evidence the guard (if that's who he was) worked for the store or if he was just waiting on an order? Why did you allegedly take this photo from outside? It doesn't speak to you having a firm grasp of the scene in front of you.

Ultimately, I'm not sure what it adds to this discussion.

HELLO
The Staff looked Hispanic and the only language heard from the drive thru window was Spanish, so I conclude they were Hispanic, not Hawaiian.
We were stuck in the drive thru for a while, I spotted the armed guard wandering around, and I took the picture shortly after placing our order.
I love the part about doubting me about the picture, which is a sure sign of Desperation on your part.

“Ultimately, I'm not sure what it adds to this discussion”
It is hard to have a discussion when dealing with people who refuse to answer a simple question.

Paddygreen

Enjoy your Trump burgers you far right Nazi assholes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs

Biafranlivemat

Tell me how wrote: »

I'd probably vote for the party that was pointing out the existing practices weren't working and that something needed to be changed.

I think I'd rather a political system that valued more teachers spending time teaching with resources and equipment they didn't have to provide for themselves than focusing on active shooter drills or job insecurity due to budget cuts.

That would seem to be more common sense to me.

"Teachers" for grades 1 to 6 they are Teachers.
For grades 6 to 12 they are Indoctrinationers, Propagandist, Liars, BullShiYters, etc.

And you know it, that's why you keep pushing the teachers BS
what budget cuts.
show me were there is " budgets cuts"