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

Snake Plisken

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I said that the person who murdered the man should be prosecuted. No news report referred to the killer as either antifa or blm. In terms of me having any time for Ngo videos, I really don't. You seem a bit obsessed with me, it's a bit weird...

He Mike the killer is fully signed up Antifa Domestic Terrorist

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1300072332581507072?s=19

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1300091602342350848?s=19

Sudden Valley

The biggest danger to Trump being re-elected is the large cases of Covid 19 in the States which is not going to get better in the next 2 months if protests/riots continue so I dont think he will enjoy this situation any more than the Dems.

Phoebas

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's just the reality of things. A civil rights lawyer is going to be biased in favour of civil rights, but they still know more about the subject matter than anyone else and cannot be discounted just because of bias.

Nor should it be. We just shouldn't take what he says as being objective. It's likely that a different lawyer coming from a different perspective would paint this in an entirely different way.

The prosecutors and perhaps a jury will ultimately decide.

Broadstone Bob

Listen to what this African American lady was saying mid week and then what the protestors were chanting last night....

https://twitter.com/LinshannonLin/status/1298826153788968963?s=20

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1300047176316329985?s=20

Sudden Valley

Sudden Valley wrote: »

The biggest danger to Trump being re-elected is the large cases of Covid 19 in the States which is not going to get better in the next 2 months if protests/riots continue so I dont think he will enjoy this situation any more than the Dems.

Protests/riots will continue because these people have no respect for others beyond their own need to express themselves (violently or non).

It's not solely about Trump. The US has been sliding towards an extreme reaction for decades with them all contributing to it escalating (mostly by ignoring the problem, or alternatively by seeking to play sides against each other). Short term views on short term gains with little respect for the future.

Trump being re-elected will be used as a rallying cry for change. Trump not being re-elected will be used as a rallying cry for change. In both cases, protesters/rioters will do what they want irrespective of covid, and the danger it represents to other people.

statesaver

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1300100292558516226


Other angles of the shooting in the comments.

LessOutragePlz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zthJUf31MA

Some unbiased interviewing and reporting from the protests in Portland.

Such a lovely bunch of peaceful BLM protesters.

All Gas No Brakes!!!!

Foxtrol

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. Cool ' ok. Its tit for tat then? Or are you saying that this scuffle between teenagers is relevant but Jacob Blake breaking into a woman’s house and raping her and stealing her car isn’t relevant. Also George Floyd forcing his way into a woman’s home and robbing her at gun point isn’t relevant. But this is. Got it.

Blake and Floyd aren't awaiting court for getting shot or choked to death by police.

Also Blake was only charged with that crime, just like KR has been charged with these killings. If you're going to say Blake is guilty prior to trial then KR is guilty is prior to trial.

You a lawyer now? So you've unequivocally identified kyle in that video and the full sequence of events and that he was charged for same and has a conviction? and I see you don't understand the term "sucker punch: Lol. God bless your eyesight and imagination.

He repeatedly punched a girl with her back to him. She couldn't be expecting a guy behind her to start punching her which is basically the definition of a sucker punch.

Here is the merriam-webster definition of it, seeing as you clearly don't know what it means

Sucker punch - : to punch (a person) suddenly without warning and often without apparent provocation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sucker%20punch

The only one who seems to have come up with that is yourself. More rabid imagination I see. I suggest you calm down and look at the absolute rubbish you are writing.

The video shows him punching a girl from behind. It is clear as day and looked like his attack would have continued if the guys videoing didn't intervene and give him a deserved few slaps for putting his hands on a girl.

Overheal

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Lol it looks like the BLM supporter who shot dead the trump supporter in Portland overnight may have a (albeit weak) claim of self defence.

What did the victim have a bunch of irrelevant past crimes on their history too?

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Well as I reposted the video detailing this - let me see 'Tell me how' - how exactly would this particular persons opinion on the issue of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident be better than your own?

He's a lawyer
He's African American
He knows about the legalities of gun ownership and gun control
He lives in the US

So yes I guess the guy most likley knows a hell of a lot more than anyone here. Including you.

I'd suggest you watch again without the bias

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

What does his blackness have to do with his validity to opinion?

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

The counter to Colion Noir's bias is that it's also his area of expertise. If you want to know the real truth behind gun laws and when you can use them, you probably want to talk to a gun lawyer. Serious enthusiasts are probably also more likely to know the finer details as well, just because we want to avoid going to jail: Gun laws apply to us more than people without guns, after all.

Case in point: In the days since this shooting, the general refrain is "Could not legally carry a rifle under 18". It took a one-line comment from a gun rights lawyer in a local newspaper to who was saying "well, actually...." before we even had an idea to look for the details.
Days later, it took a link on a page from a pro-gun lawyer to see that the legislation in question says "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if he is in violation of...."
That's a pretty big thing to miss, and likely caused by a lack of interest in the subject matter (or dislike of the subject matter in some quarters). There is a very good chance that a group of "gun nuts" (Not a fan of the term, but it gets the point across) in Wisconsin are also well aware of that part of the law that most people wouldn't know exist.

It's just the reality of things. A civil rights lawyer is going to be biased in favour of civil rights, but they still know more about the subject matter than anyone else and cannot be discounted just because of bias.

I agree with most of that but I don't think you can call it a miss yet.

'Gun nuts' will have knowledge but I think it is a leap to believe guys on Youtube in other states have more knowledge than the local DA, who has likely been charging these type of situations for years. I know US DA's love to file a bunch of trumped up charges to get people to plead down, which is what screws a lot of poor (mostly minority people) who cant afford good lawyers to fight it and end up in jail.

I also read the KR's defense statement and I don't remember them touching that subject. They go out of the way to point out the weapon didn't cross state lines but never mentioned his age to carry it, despite it being raised in social and regular media and that it was a specific charge against him.

If it was a cut and dry as you're proposing I'm shocked that they didn't cover it in this statement. I think there is more here than meets the eye from a review of legislation.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

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=20

Looks like he is violently predisposed

kildare lad

Cody montana wrote: »

Self defense!

Looks like a pretty straight out murder to me , " we got a Trumper here " then he shots him .



https://twitter.com/OrwellOf/status/1300101859328380929?s=20

Foxtrol

Trump supporters driving through a red light, knocking over pedestrians, and bear macing people on the street. Nice the president is supporting this 'peaceful protest'.

https://twitter.com/TheRealCoryElia/status/1299908378810957825?s=20

Broadstone Bob

kildare lad wrote: »

Looks like a pretty straight out murder to me , " we got a Trumper here " then he shots him .



https://twitter.com/OrwellOf/status/1300101859328380929?s=20

Its actually "we got a couple here" and to me it sounds like the far rights guys (after listening to the shooter in a previous interview). Seems there is a video of one of the far righters saying he wants to kill an antifa member.
On what little is known so far I don't have any sympathy for the victim. seems like he went out looking for fight.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

Trump supporters driving through a red light, knocking over pedestrians, and bear macing people on the street. Nice the president is supporting this 'peaceful protest'.

https://twitter.com/TheRealCoryElia/status/1299908378810957825?s=20

When will Trump denounce this vigilante violence?

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

Blake and Floyd aren't awaiting court for getting shot or choked to death by police. Also Blake was only charged with that crime, just like KR has been charged with these killings. If you're going to say Blake is guilty prior to trial then KR is guilty is prior to trial.He repeatedly punched a girl with her back to him. She couldn't be expecting a guy behind her to start punching her which is basically the definition of a sucker punch.Here is the merriam-webster definition of it, seeing as you clearly don't know what it means
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sucker%20punch
The video shows him punching a girl from behind. It is clear as day and looked like his attack would have continued if the guys videoing didn't intervene and give him a deserved few slaps for putting his hands on a girl.

Missed the point there again? The point is none of that is relevant to the current discussion and you are posting your personal interpretation of teenagers brawling in an transparent attempt of tit for tat. And no not all posters are posting that crap either. I posted the other cases to highlight how stupid this stuff is. And I outlined previously it's irrelevant as we certainly do not have the full details.

You can attempt to score points by making up what you believe might or might not have happened. It doesnt help anyone.

And for your information 'a sucker punch' would be if you were walking down a sidewalk minding your own business and I as a stranger turned round and hit you one. That's not what's on this video. It is what idiots were labelling the video on twitter. No need to copy them tbh.

The video of the teenagers brawling is bad quality and nearly impossible to figure out what is happening. Presuming he did what you are alleging - Was he charged with this? Does he have a conviction? I can find no evidence of either. And unless you are a Laywer you are not qualified to make a call on any of it regarding how a legal case will or will not progress.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

When will Trump denounce this vigilante violence?

Just kidding: he’s cheering it on,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/30/trump-unleashes-barrage-tweets-response-portland-violence-says-big-backlash-protests-cannot-be-unexpected/

drunkmonkey911

Foxtrol wrote: »

Trump supporters driving through a red light, knocking over pedestrians, and bear macing people on the street. Nice the president is supporting this 'peaceful protest'.

https://twitter.com/TheRealCoryElia/status/1299908378810957825?s=20

Do we know why they were driving through the red light? It's a very short clip, so there's not much context, but it looks like they were macing people that were physical obstructing the vehicle.

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's pure scummy behaviour to attack the van. And any attempt to assault the person inside, no matter what colour they are, would be justification for the person in the van defending themselves. I can't be much clearer than that.

I agree, the van provides no protection from a gun. But we didn't see anybody point a gun at the van. We did see video evidence of people chasing KR. We did see video evidence of people throwning something at KR. There is also witness testimony stating that someone tried to grab KR's gun. That's evidence.

KR was being directly assaulted by being chased and having thrown things at him and having someone grabbing at his firearm. That's his justification right there. I'm actually fine with KR shooting an unarmed person if the unarmed person was assaulting KR.

We have video evidence of people weapons attacking the van the people in. They have the people in the van cornered and are attacking it. How is that less bad than someone throwing 'something' at KR, which he likely had no awareness of.

Your own definition of assault was threatening so every person involved in attacking that van is assaulting the people in it.

Why are you ok with KR shooting a person that was assaulting him but the people in the van have an extra level to take action?

Answer these questions please.

See below. Even from your questions the people in the van were in a worse situation yet you're asking them to be more reasonable with their actions.

Was KR being chased? - Yes while the people in the van were caught and surrounded by about 30 people. The people in the van tried to use non-lethal defense yet the mob kept attacking
Did KR have something thrown at him? - Yes but unclear if he was aware of it while the mob were attacking the van and were visibly carrying weapons
Did KR have someone try take his firearm? - Unclear for the first and for the second scene I don't think a killer can claim the public aren't allowed to try to take their weapon off them before the police get there

It's up to the individual in the van to decide what they want to do. It's their level of perceived threat that is important when it comes to self-defence.

If they saw armed persons banging on the van and reasonably thought they were going to be attacked, then fair enough, that might be grounds for self-defence. What is certain in my mind is that there is absolute grounds for self defence if someone points a firearm into the van, throws a petrol bomb at the van or tries to attack the person in the van.

Again, in bold is what you're claiming is grounds for self defense for the people in the van yet KR met none of those thresholds and you're fine with claiming his was self defense, despite the people in the van doing what KR never did and use non-lethal methods of self defense.

I don't think KR has grounds for self defense yet he may get off due to US laws being a mess. Similarly I think the people in the van could have shot several people attacking the van and potentially gotten off for the same reason KR might.

The difference here is you have an extra level of reasonableness for one situation than another

Foxtrol

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

Do we know why they were driving through the red light? It's a very short clip, so there's not much context, but it looks like they were macing people that were physical obstructing the vehicle.

The people obstructing them were on the crosswalk and the light was clearly red for the vehicle.

Are you saying it is ok for people to go up to traffic lights and start macing people that legally have the right of way to cross the street?

drunkmonkey911

Foxtrol wrote: »

The people obstructing them were on the crosswalk and the light was clearly red for the vehicle.

Are you saying it is ok for people to go up to traffic lights and start macing people that legally have the right of way to cross the street?

Of course not. But is that what was happening there, people were just crossing the street? As I said, the clip is very short, it doesn't show that.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

What does his blackness have to do with his validity to opinion?

His "blackness"???

Holy God what are on about now?

The above comment was a reply to 'Tell me how' claiming the lawyers opinion had no merit because he supports legal gun ownership.

Tell me how wrote:

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

Tell me how went on to say that posters should take a look at his profile - so I did. And thats his profile. You got a problem with that?

Foxtrol

gozunda wrote: »

Missed the point there again? The point is none of that is relevant to the current discussion and you are posting your personal interpretation of teenagers brawling in an transparent attempt of tit for tat. And no not all posters are posting that crap either. I posted the other cases to highlight hiw stupid this stuff is. And I outlined previously it's irrelevant as we certainly do not have the full details.

You can attempt to score points by making up what you believe might or might not have happened. It doesnt help anyone.

Since the lad killed those people posters have been trying to humanize him by calling him a kid that made a mistake.

It is very relevant to point out that if his classmates said he used to threaten them and there is a video of him attacking a girl a month before the shootings the defense will struggle to point to his character as it opens the prosecution to bring this stuff in.

And for your information 'a sucker punch' would be if you were walking down a sidewalk minding your own business and I as a stranger turned round and hit you one. That's not what's on this video. It is what idiots were labelling the video on twitter. No need to copy them tbh.

Are you really 'Well Ackchyuallying' the dictionary definition of a term???:rolleyes:

Your made up definition does not overrule all.

The video of the teenagers brawling is bad quality and nearly impossible to figure out what is happening. Presuming he did what you are alleging - Was he charged with this? Does he have a conviction? I can find no evidence of either. And unless you are a Laywer you are not qualified to make a call on any of it regarding how a legal case will or will not progress.

Because teenagers get in this stuff all the time and people either dont report it to the police or they dont file charges. It doesn't mean it cant be used in court against him if the defense start trying to make him out as being a nice quiet kid. The fight and the threats show he has a temper and lashes out.

mynamejeff

kildare lad wrote: »

Looks like a pretty straight out murder to me , " we got a Trumper here " then he shots him .



https://twitter.com/OrwellOf/status/1300101859328380929?s=20

nice touch in the first video the girl claiming to be a medic makes up a red car fleeing the scene to mislead the police when it was obviously one of her own gang

Foxtrol

drunkmonkey911 wrote: »

Of course not. But is that what was happening there, people were just crossing the street? As I said, the clip is very short, it doesn't show that.

It doesn't matter what they were doing when they have the right to cross the street and the car has a red light so cant drive through them.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they were doing when they have the right to cross the street and the car has a red light so cant drive through them.

You are comical..

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

When will Trump denounce this vigilante violence?

Well how about denouncing all violence both out of control blm ptotestors and those reacting to them?

Or is it that there are only one bunch of idiots there?

Broadstone Bob

the victim in Portland. Total right wing nut job. Won the right to wear a fox hat on his drivers licence. Definitely went to Portland looking for a fight and had mace cans in some kind of holsters around his legs. has previous convictions for taking weapons to rallies.....

https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/917161703741186048?s=20

https://twitter.com/alchemyrev/status/917387357027844099?s=20