Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]
Comments
-
Looks like the defense won't be able to use any sort of character defense for Rittenhouse or else the prosecution will be able to bring in plenty of evidence how he used to regularly threaten to kids that joked about him or Trump and the released video of him repeatedly sucker punching a girl a month before the incident.
In a second video a group of guys knock the crap out of him for doing that to a girl and I expect he'll soon be seeing some of that similar type of retribution in prison.
https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1299847372185403392?s=200 -
Manic Moran wrote: »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'.
Very good post.0 -
-
1800_Ladladlad wrote: »This one boiled my p*ss out of all the videos of BLM/Antifa attacking and harassing people in the streets.
This is what Antifa does, they will bait the regular people, opposing protesters and police to a fight relentlessly, right up until one of them does something that poses a threat and takes action after much antagonizing. Where they just "caught in the crossfire" as an Overheal put it before. Once people respond to these beta type males, that is when BLM/Antifa starts to play the victim as if they are being attacked/assaulted for no reason. As seen in the video one p*ss ant cowers away but when caught and the mob has him he regrows his balls and continues to the man in the head repeatedly. Vermin.
At least you're honest with your hypocrisy that it is only when one side does that kind of activity that it 'boils your p*iss'.0 -
It may be getting to a stage where County sherrifs can call upon Unorganised Militias to uphold peace and repell rebellion. Fully legal and something antifa/BLM folks really REALLY don't want to happen.0
-
Advertisement
-
If you didn't see him advocate for the USCCA then you didn't actually watch the video you posted.
He talks about the benefits of USCCA membership, he provides a link and invites viewers to click on it. He talks about the benefits of the insurance policy you can get from them.
I've got no problem with any of that by the way, but you posted the video and asked people here to watch it in an unbiased way, but the guy is not unbiased himself (and that's fine - it's perfectly ok to have a bias). You didn't know this because you clearly didn't watch the video yourself.
You accuse him of bias. Really? Is he biased agsinst criminals because he is a lawyer? Is he biased because he supports legal gun control?. Would you accuse him of the same bias if he was white.?
Funnily enough you didnt answer that last point
And yes he talks about legal gun ownership.
He refers to legal gun ownership. He provides links to learn more about that. And its apparent you do have a huge problem with that. But oddly not the criminals that roam the streets, loot and destroy places of work and neighbourhoods oh and murder people. Odd.0 -
Oh yes, pistol guy showed great restraint by firing the first rounds and quite possibly got the first guy killed by spooking AR guy who was being chased.
The same pistol guy who got shot in the arm while pulling his gun on the grounded AR guy, and once wounded he backed off, AR guy didn't continue to shoot so he's alive.
I'm not taking sides, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Everyone involved in this behaved like idiots. It's not some left vs right thing. You don't have to take sides.
You're wrong. Online researchers have ID'ed the guy that shot before the initial victim and it isn't one of the other victims0 -
Sudden Valley wrote: »I think the only positive from the last few days is that there maybe less instances untrained young gun enthusiasts willing to risk their futures going out to their way to the riots/protests happening near them. Even if Rittenhouse doesnt see prison time I can't see him becoming a police officer or joining the army (I think these are his career aspirations) so this has negatively affected his future prospects.
Some posters definitely seem to think only those without a criminal record should be protected under the law, which is definitely dangerous thinking!
I don’t think he’ll be worried about employment. He’s about to become a very, very rich man.0 -
Richard Hillman wrote: »It may be getting to a stage where County sherrifs can call upon Unorganised Militias to uphold peace and repell rebellion. Fully legal and something antifa/BLM folks really REALLY don't want to happen.
If looting and rioting continue or escalate, that will certainly happen in many areas.0 -
If that is so - why do these "protests" frequently devolve into attacks on their fellow citizens (of all races) and the destruction of property and places of work and not the 'police' like you claim.
Where are the protestors stopping this escalating violance and thuggery? Where are the condemnations? Videos online show such violence is regularly being touted by speakers and members of this movevent. And I see little or no condemnation by other protestors. And the violence against ordinary people now appears to be escalating.
Lets go with that - black people are angry at the police. However members of the movement are indiscrimately violently attacking others and property because they know if the police do anything - the social justice warriors and screamers will be up in arms. Then they are surprised when some are starting to fight back?
The current movement wouod appear to have little all to do with achieving justice 'for all' as they like to claim.
This has been explained to you many times and yet you persist in refusing to acknowledge same. Why is that?
Scum like that BLM leader who called the looting “reparations” show exactly what that movement is about.
“The Chicago Black Lives Matter organizer who justified looting as “reparation” has doubled down — insisting this week that even calling someone a criminal is “based on racism.”
Ariel Atkins told WBEZ that her group “100 percent” supports the violent looters who trashed chunks of the Windy City on Monday, again repeating her claim that it is “reparations.”0 -
Advertisement
-
You're wrong. Online researchers have ID'ed the guy that shot before the initial victim and it isn't one of the other victims
Rittenhouse was being chased.
Rittenhouse had things thrown at him.
Rittenhouse was running away.
Someone fired a shot.
Rittenhouse would more than likely thought that someone was shooting at him.
Rittenhouse turned.
Someone attempted to grab Rittenhouse's gun.
Rittenhouse shot him.
Is there anything above that I have said that is incorrect? I think the only thing up for debate in what I've said above is the bit in bold. If someone is chasing me and I hear a gunshot behind me, damn right I'd be scared and think they were shooting at me.
They are the reasons I think Rittenhouse acted in self-defence for the first shooting. And given Manic Moran's research into the law, it is quite possible that Rittenhouse actually broke no gun laws either.
If Rittenhouse is found not guilty, would you accept the verdict?0 -
weldoninhio wrote: »“The Chicago Black Lives Matter organizer who justified looting as “reparation” has doubled down — insisting this week that even calling someone a criminal is “based on racism.”
Like, they just come across as half retarded..0 -
weldoninhio wrote: »Ariel Atkins told WBEZ that her group “100 percent” supports the violent looters who trashed chunks of the Windy City on Monday, again repeating her claim that it is “reparations.”
It's mostly the black community who will suffer from those actions. Businesses will shut up shop in black areas and that will mean less jobs etc.
I'm not against black people looking for fair play with the police by the way, but they are going about it the wrong way and are actually turning many people who would be in support of their claim against them.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Firstly, nobody has the right to damage property. The people attacking the van are scum.
Secondly, banging on the outside of the van is one thing, but as soon as someone opens the door of the van and attempts to drag the person out, that's grounds for self-defence right there. I'd have no problem with whoever was in the van aerating the head of the first person in through the van door. Or aerating the head of the second person in through the van door and so on.
Thirdly, if the first guy getting shot didn't stop people trying to get into the van, I would guess that he could shoot everybody who attempts to climb into the van or to drag him out. If he had to shoot 10 people because 10 people kept trying to get into the van to assault him, then so be it.
Fourthly, I'm not advocating spraying the crowd, just shoot the person directly attacking you until they can't attack you any more. If that means putting four or five shots into them, so be it.
Lastly, as long as people keep attacking and trying to assault the person in the van, then it's self-defence.
By the way, I'm differentiating between banging on the van and trying to enter the van. Two different things. I don't advocate shooting someone for banging on the van, but as soon as they try to enter it, different ball game then.
Does that answer your question?
Partially but some of it seems quite inconsistent with what posters have claimed as being reasons why it was ok for KR to shoot people chasing him.
You/they claim KR was cornered for the first killing and that gave him the right to self defense. Why are you advocating that in that situation only a person that is entering the truck can be shot, not everyone that has cornered them? The person in the truck is much more cornered than KR, why don't they have free rein to attack everyone involved in cornering them? Being cornered either matters or it doesn't.
There have been claims that KR couldn't know if/what weapons the guys that are chasing him had so it was reasonable for him to shoot to kill (firing multiple shots). The people in the van don't know if that people attacking the van have weapons and are going to shoot or set fire to the van. Why cant the people in the van fire at everyone attacking them that may have a weapon like KR did?
I'm fully in agreeing on the level of reasonable force you're calling for in this van situation, however it isn't at all consistent with arguments being made for KR's self defense0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Like, they just come across as half retarded..
They come across as, dare I say it, racist.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »It's mostly the black community who will suffer from those actions. Businesses will shut up shop in black areas and that will mean less jobs etc.
I'm not against black people looking for fair play with the police by the way, but they are going about it the wrong way and are actually turning many people who would be in support of their claim against them.
Someone earlier posted a tweet from a reporter in Kenosha saying the area with the most damage from the looting and rioting was uptown which is the heart of the black community in Kenosha.
Tragic.0 -
Partially but some of it seems quite inconsistent with what posters have claimed as being reasons why it was ok for KR to shoot people chasing him.
If you are saying about posters saying that it was ok for KR to shoot those guys because they were criminals, I've never said that. I've actually said that's not a reason for shooting them.
My reasoning is that they were trying to assault him. So that makes it self-defence in my book. Clearly we differ so I'm happy to let the courts decide on that one.You/they claim KR was cornered for the first killing and that gave him the right to self defense. Why are you advocating that in that situation only a person that is entering the truck can be shot, not everyone that has cornered them? The person in the truck is much more cornered than KR, why don't they have free rein to attack everyone involved in cornering them? Being cornered either matters or it doesn't.
I'm not aligned with anybody else so I only speak for myself, not anybody else.
Right, KR only shot the person nearest him. He didn't shoot everyone because once the first person was shot, other people got a bit of cop on and stopped chasing him (for a short while anyway).
Being cornered isn't the main reason for the self-defence. It does add to the level of threat though because he had looters with weapons damaging cars in front of him and people chasing him behind him. Being attacked/assaulted is the main reason for self-defence. KR didn't have many places to run. He was being chased and the direction he was running in was towards cars that had people smashing them up with bars or sticks, i.e. more rioters.
On to your van query. If you are in a van, you have some protection. You are much more vulnerable to assault outside of the van. Once someone enters the van, you are very vulnerable and therefore (I think), within your rights to defend yourself.There have been claims that KR couldn't know if/what weapons the guys that are chasing him had so it was reasonable for him to shoot to kill (firing multiple shots).
I'm in agreement, he probably couldn't have known what weapons the guys had. Doesn't really matter even if the guys chasing him had no weapons. People can easily be killed with fists, feet etc.The people in the van don't know if that people attacking the van have weapons and are going to shoot or set fire to the van. Why cant the people in the van fire at everyone attacking them that may have a weapon like KR did?
If someone outside of the van pointed a weapon into the van, then yes, the person in the van would have reason for defending themselves.
Once again, attacking the van is different than attacking the person in the van. If I was in the van, I wouldn't shoot people for banging on the van because I'm somewhat safe inside. But once they try get into the van, hell yeah, they are getting it. Rittenhouse did not have the protection of being in a van.I'm fully in agreeing on the level of reasonable force you're calling for in this van situation, however it isn't at all consistent with arguments being made for KR's self defense
I think it is. Being in a van isn't quite the same as being face to face with someone trying to grab your gun.
What was KR to do? Let the mob chasing him catch him and possibly beat him to death. We've seen protesters beat people to death before.0 -
[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.....
The US police probably don’t do TVMA training in acute hospitals in Ireland. I’d guess that’s why.0 -
I don't 'accuse' him of bias. I simply state that he has a bias for the reasons I gave . It's nothing to do with him being black - I don't know why you raise that odd point.You accuse him of bias. Really? Is he biased agsinst criminals because he is a lawyer? Is he biased because he supports legal gun control?. Would you accuse him of the same bias if he was white.?
Funnily enough you didnt answer that last point
And yes he talks about legal gun ownership.
He refers to legal gun ownership. He provides links to learn more about that. And its apparent you do have a huge problem with that. But oddly not the criminals that roam the streets, loot and destroy places of work and neighbourhoods oh and murder people. Odd.
I don't have any problem with his bias. It's fine and normal for people take particular positions based on their own opinions.
The only problem I had was you asking people to view the video in an unbiased way and it became apparent that you didn't watch it in full yourself. You seem to want to deal with that criticism by making all kinds of unfounded assumptions about positions that I don't hold.0 -
Looks like the defense won't be able to use any sort of character defense for Rittenhouse or else the prosecution will be able to bring in plenty of evidence how he used to regularly threaten to kids that joked about him or Trump and the released video of him repeatedly sucker punching a girl a month before the incident.
In a second video a group of guys knock the crap out of him for doing that to a girl and I expect he'll soon be seeing some of that similar type of retribution in prison...
So leaving the fantasy side of your comment for just a minute.
This scuffle between teenagers is relevant how?
From the video - Its difficult to see what the fuk this scuffle is about or even who is who.
But according to twitter - this is a fight between Kyle's sister (the smaller girl) and another taller girl. So in the footage big girl hits smaller girl Someone tries to break up the fight by hitting the bigger girl. Is it Kyle? Fuked if I can tell. And btw you do know what a sucker punch is? Don't see one tbh. Was the kid charged with anything? cant find anything about that.
You really seem to be into **** throwing about the kid just a bit too much0 -
Advertisement
-
Broadstone Bob wrote: »
That guy is doing everything he can to bait a response out of the police officer so the mob can attack him. Far too many thugs have been emboldened by this movement.0 -
I don't 'accuse' him of bias. I simply state that he has a bias for the reasons I gave . It's nothing to do with him being black - I don't know why you raise that odd point. I don't have any problem with his bias. It's fine and normal for people take particular positions based on their own opinions.The only problem I had was you asking people to view the video in an unbiased way and it became apparent that you didn't watch it in full yourself. You seem to want to deal with that criticism by making all kinds of unfounded assumptions about positions that I don't hold.
Lol. Yes you did . Btw love the Olympic standard hair splitting of your comment that you "don't 'accuse' him of bias' but 'simply state that he has a bias" lol.
Here's your Comment.Phoebas wrote:You posted the video and asked people here to watch it in an unbiased way, but the guy is not unbiased himself
The question I asked posits if you would similarly accuse him of being biased because of race
You accuse him of bias because he supports legal gun ownership. By that logic he should be biased against Kyle as a white kid. Which he is clearly not.
And yes you do need to view the video without the bias you've shown in your own comments Sorry you don't understand that.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Rittenhouse was being chased.
Rittenhouse had things thrown at him.
Rittenhouse was running away.
Someone fired a shot.
Rittenhouse would more than likely thought that someone was shooting at him.
Rittenhouse turned.
Someone attempted to grab Rittenhouse's gun.
Rittenhouse shot him.
Is there anything above that I have said that is incorrect? I think the only thing up for debate in what I've said above is the bit in bold. If someone is chasing me and I hear a gunshot behind me, damn right I'd be scared and think they were shooting at me.
They are the reasons I think Rittenhouse acted in self-defence for the first shooting. And given Manic Moran's research into the law, it is quite possible that Rittenhouse actually broke no gun laws either.
If Rittenhouse is found not guilty, would you accept the verdict?
You're moving the goal posts.
That poster claimed the victim that survived shot the pistol prior to the first victim getting shot.
Evidence says the poster was wrong and now you're trying to deflect to something else0 -
Even when Rittenhouse shot guy with gun, that guy with gun didn't kill Rittenhouse, he just ran off. The Left are not capable of using weapons against a fellow human. While the far right will shoot at people for fun.0
-
BorneTobyWilde wrote: »Even when Rittenhouse shot guy with gun, that guy with gun didn't kill Rittenhouse, he just ran off. The Left are not capable of using weapons against a fellow human. While the far right will shoot at people for fun.
Unless maybe you're being sarcastic that is an incredibly naive view of these people.0 -
Lol. Yes you did - here
The question I asked posits if you would similarly accuse him of being biased because of his race
You accuse him of bias because he supports legal gun ownership. By that logic he should be biased against Kyle as a white kid. Which he is clearly not.
And yes you do need to view the video without the bias you've shown in your own comments Sorry you don't understand that.
You've got it all wrong. I don't 'accuse' him of bias. I just state that he is biased.
And not because he supports gun ownership, but because, in his video about a person who is in legal difficulty after having used his gun in this circumstance, he uses this to promote an insurance policy from the USCCA that covers exactly this circumstance.
You didn't watch the video in full, so you didn't see that, but now that it's been brought to your attention you have no excuse.0 -
BorneTobyWilde wrote: »Even when Rittenhouse shot guy with gun, that guy with gun didn't kill Rittenhouse, he just ran off. The Left are not capable of using weapons against a fellow human. While the far right will shoot at people for fun.
Wasn't there a trumpeter killed in portland last night by a leftist?0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »If you are saying about posters saying that it was ok for KR to shoot those guys because they were criminals, I've never said that. I've actually said that's not a reason for shooting them.
My reasoning is that they were trying to assault him. So that makes it self-defence in my book. Clearly we differ so I'm happy to let the courts decide on that one.
Nothing in my post mentioned previous crimes so no.I'm not aligned with anybody else so I only speak for myself, not anybody else.
Right, KR only shot the person nearest him. He didn't shoot everyone because once the first person was shot, other people got a bit of cop on and stopped chasing him (for a short while anyway).
Being cornered isn't the main reason for the self-defence. It does add to the level of threat though because he had looters with weapons damaging cars in front of him and people chasing him behind him. Being attacked/assaulted is the main reason for self-defence. KR didn't have many places to run. He was being chased and the direction he was running in was towards cars that had people smashing them up with bars or sticks, i.e. more rioters.
On to your van query. If you are in a van, you have some protection. You are much more vulnerable to assault outside of the van. Once someone enters the van, you are very vulnerable and therefore (I think), within your rights to defend yourself.
So you're claiming not having many places to run by one person (who is unarmed) is more threatening than being completely surrounded by 30(ish) people, many visibly carrying weapons and wearing body armour, just because you have the protection of a van, that the 30 people are attacking?I'm in agreement, he probably couldn't have known what weapons the guys had. Doesn't really matter even if the guys chasing him had no weapons. People can easily be killed with fists, feet etc.
If someone outside of the van pointed a weapon into the van, then yes, the person in the van would have reason for defending themselves.
Once again, attacking the van is different than attacking the person in the van. If I was in the van, I wouldn't shoot people for banging on the van because I'm somewhat safe inside. But once they try get into the van, hell yeah, they are getting it. Rittenhouse did not have the protection of being in a van.
So you claim is that KR didn't need to wait for a someone to point a weapon but the people in the van do. The van provides basically no protection from gun fire and I'd argue even more dangerous to flammable material - bigger target and more accelerant inside.I think it is. Being in a van isn't quite the same as being face to face with someone trying to grab your gun.
What was KR to do? Let the mob chasing him catch him and possibly beat him to death. We've seen protesters beat people to death before.
We've seen protesters burn out vehicles before, yet you're expecting restraint from those trapped and surrounded by a mob visibly carrying weapons.0 -
You're moving the goal posts.
That poster claimed the victim that survived shot the pistol prior to the first victim getting shot.
Evidence says the poster was wrong and now you're trying to deflect to something elseYou're moving the goal posts.
And you are not answering the question. I've answered any questions you've asked me. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.That poster claimed the victim that survived shot the pistol prior to the first victim getting shot.
Evidence says the poster was wrong and now you're trying to deflect to something else
I was responding to your post, not someone elses. That poster may well have been wrong but my point was that it doesn't matter all that much who fired that shot. KR would have believed he was in danger and the video evidence seems to back that up.0 -
Advertisement
-
drunkmonkey911 wrote: »Unless maybe you're being sarcastic that is an incredibly naive view of these people.
I'm not sure if that poster is just taking the proverbial or what. The fact is supporters on both the left and the right often carry guns at protests in states which allow it.
BLM Protestors who where involved in the Kyle Rittenhouse incident were also shown to be carrying weapons which it is believed were fired.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement