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

WrenBoy

Foxtrol wrote: »

I see Donald is now resorting to crisis actors as real owners don't want to be involved in his attempts to put more fuel on the fire

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1301002407250472966?s=20

I'd be afraid of putting myself out there as well, I might have more "fiery but mostly peaceful protest" visited upon my family and business.

The Raging Bile Duct

Foxtrol wrote: »

I see Donald is now resorting to crisis actors as real owners don't want to be involved in his attempts to put more fuel on the fire

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1301002407250472966?s=20

Tbf, he owns the actual property. It would seem that he sold the business and not the property to the new guy, so it's a total stretch to call him a crisis actor.

Foxtrol

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Tbf, he owns the actual property. It would seem that he sold the business and not the property to the new guy, so it's a total stretch to call him a crisis actor.

As I pointed out in my previous post, he was repeatedly noted as the owner of the small business not an owner of the building.

One gets a lot more sympathy among the general public and it was the one they repeatedly lied to make him out to be

Foxtrol

Given how a few here seem to have a feed of every bad thing a protester has ever done, can you please provide videos of these 'bags of soup' being used against cops, that Donald seems very very worried about?

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1300909465412091906?s=20

Snickers Man

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's how laws work. If you don't break them, then there's no problem. Yes, you can do wrong things, but not every wrong thing is illegal.

Ain't that the truth!!!
Slavery used to be legal.
Intramarital rape used to be legal.
Antimiscegenation laws used to be legal, in quite a few places too. (Including Ireland if you go back far enough)

I suspect Americans get pissed off with people quoting Martin Luther King at them---because he is an impossibly tough act to follow--- but he famously said that everything Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany was legal. Didn't make it right.

This case of a jumped up young vigilante "patrolling" a turbulent neighbourhood with a battlefield weapon under no authority, with no accountability and with limited judgement of how to avoid escalating an already tense situation should not be dismissed as 'he was doing nothing illegal, so there should have been, as you said, "no problem". '

There's a big problem. He killed two people. In the first case it's not at all certain that he was acting in self defence. He shot somebody, inspected the body and then made a call bragging about how he killed someone.
"No problem", you say?

Then as he ran away somebody tried to apprehend him by hitting him with a skateboard. That person got shot too. As did another person who was armed with a pistol. OK they may not have been paragons of virtue themselves but so what? This little thug shouldn't be given the power of judge, jury and executioner just because he felt entitled to strut his stuff in a location he had no business being in.

The default position of many Americans, especially those who support the US 2nd Amendment, seems to be that the benefit of the doubt should always go to the gun toter who kills someone; not to the person who got killed.
Anything that potentially discredits the wisdom of a perpetually armed populace has to be shouted down.
People who are technically and temperamentally unsuited to carrying firearms in fraught situations are allowed almost unlimited latitude, legally speaking, to shoot and kill. The law says they can, or more accurately, does not say they cannot, so they do it and get away with it.
How do you expect the people of Kenosha to react to this?
Shrug and say "No problem. Of course it's fine for 17 year olds from outside to strut about with semiautomatics and blast at people if they feel threatened. That's the American way!"?
Really?
Would it be a good idea for a load of black people to go marching through Rittenhaus's neighbourhood tooled up with guns just waiting for somebody to act in a way they deemed threatening before blasting away?
It would be legal.
So no problem?

And I'm sure the local police would not try and restrict such a demonstration in any way.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not really in favour of people parading around the streets with their firearms, but if the law allows it, then so be it.

No problem. :rolleyes:

edjkdkjdhjkd

gozunda wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The above comment has only one other possible response ...

You clearly have a problem with people of color. Do they make you feel inferior or something? It's probably due to most Irish women these days preferring the black lads

gozunda

edjkdkjdhjkd wrote: »

You clearly have a problem with people of color. Do they make you feel inferior or something? It's probably due to most Irish women these days preferring the black lads

So from a satirical skit against racism you get that. Really?

But what you u are saying that people with whom you diasgree with (regardless of their colour or race) are racist?

Interesting viewpoint on an anonymous Internet forum unless you are presuming other peoples race and gender yes?

Guess what that makes your comment?

gozunda

edjkdkjdhjkd wrote: »

It's quite clear you have an agenda against people of color/from Africa.I've wasted too much energy on you, bye. Your response was pathetic btw

Have you - where?

Nope your comment above re. "black lads" was clearly racist and sexist tbh. Dont try and pretend otherwise my friend.

Manic Moran

Snickers Man wrote: »

Don't like it? It's downright Orwellian. It parallels so closely the language of the (amended) constitution of Animal Farm which stated "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

"All dangerous weapons are forbidden to people under 18 years of age, except for really dangerous ones like assault rifles!"

(Do you accept that that is a fair interpretation of the law as you have stated it?)

Not really. There is a very long history in the US of long arms being less restricted than small ones. The vast majority of crimes to include homicides are carried out with pistols. More people are killed with hammers or knives than with rifles or shotguns. It used to be the case that the default position was that anyone who carried a weapon concealed did so because he was not of good character.

A long rifle (and note that the law specifically says that short rifles such as the current US Army's M4 are not protected) is easy to see, hard to hide, and easy to control. They are more accurate and accidents are less common than a pistol. They are far less likely to be used in crime. If the powers-that-are believe that a 17-year-old should be permitted to roam around with a dangerous weapon, a rifle is probably one of the weapons you would prefer them to be armed with, not a pistol.

There are two ancillary causes for such laws, although I don't know the legislative history of Wisconsin's specifically. Given the predominance of use of pistols for criminal activity, it's another thing to charge a minor with whilst leaving unchargeable an action which normally is not done with criminal intent.

The other is that 17-year-olds occasionally wander off in the woods on their own, and a rifle is a handy thing to bring along. Granted large animal attacks are rare, the most recent on in Wisconsin was a bear attacking a man in 2017 (He survived), but you will still find a large number of folks who won't go out into the woods without one. If nothing else, the State of Wisconsin encourages the shooting of feral pigs whenever and wherever they are encountered. Pistols just make them angry. http://www.backcountryattitude.com/wild-pigs.html
Potential Threats to Hikers from Wild Pigs
wild boar with sharp tusks
Feral pigs can exhibit aggressive territorial behaviors.
Hogs may weigh up to 300 pounds or more, can charge at least 11 mph and can quickly attack hikers.
Boars have four extremely sharp tusks up to five inches long that can severely injure or kill a hiker.

You can't, with any credibility, get all po-faced about respecting the rule of written law and then immediately point out that the same law is so evidently crafted to defer to the law of the jungle.

If a man has a gun, you will kowtow to his every needs because if not, he might conceivably perceive you to be a threat to his life and therefore be entitled to shoot you. Legally.

Such a person may also decide to hit you on the head with a skateboard. Or stab you, just because they're bigger/stronger/younger than you. There's the old phrase that God made all people in his image, Samuel Colt made them all equal.

This applies whether you are wielding a skateboard in response to an armed stranger in your neighbourhood who has already shot somebody, (one of the Kenosha victims) or if you are just walking home from the candy store minding your own business (Trayvon Martin in Florida).

It does, indeed. I say, yet again: Attacking a man known to be armed is an extremely foolish thing to do and I do not recommend doing so. Especially if the situation is fluid and confused, such as in Kenosha where just who did what and how legal it was is not clear.

You tut disapprovingly of an immature 17 year old tooling up with a battlefield weapon and running round a riot zone looking for (and finding) trouble but then immediately retreat behind "well there's no law against it so he did nothing wrong".

It seems likely he did nothing illegal in carrying the rifle, whilst at the same time exhibiting poor judgement, judgement apparently being something in generally short supply that night. The two are different concepts. The shootings themselves, that remains to be seen, mainly due to the lack of information on the first one.

Doesn't American law in general follow the concepts of Common Law with its notions of precedence and general principles? Here's a corollary: in the next day or so, a resident of Kenosha in legal possession of a firearm shoots on sight and kills an armed person from outside the neighbourhood who is standing on his street carrying a long firearm but not in any uniform to suggest he is a person of any authority, and by implication, subject to public accountability.

The Kenosha resident then pleads self defence because the last "civilian" to come into his neighbourhood with a rifle shot two people dead and now there is a rabid chorus of people, usually white, insisting that he did nothing wrong and contributing big money to his legal defence. Such a person is a clear and present threat to the safety of anybody in that neighbourhood, so he must be taken out.

Flaws in that legal argument?

It's a little confusing, but if the armed person was not threatening anyone and just standing there holding a rifle, the legal argument is that there will be a charge of murder which I don't see as a flaw. Anything after that seems to be a straw man.

Self defence is a natural right. But the American corollary that every citizen therefore has the right to walk around with a loaded firearm in any situation is a ludicrous state of affairs, which imparts more danger throughout American society and is laughed to scorn around the rest of the democratic or "Free" world.

Perhaps. But we seem to like our corollary that not only do we have the right to self defense, we also have the ability to practically exercise that right. We tried it the other way for a few decades, didn't seem to work out for us.

Tell me how

DeadHand wrote: »

As a child, I was verbally abused by, beaten and robbed by Traveller kids. I would be far from alone in this. Abuse from this demographic has continued throughout my life, only lessening as I learned to avoid it more successfully.

Would you make similar excuses for me if I publicly stated that all Travellers are genetically defective and should be eradicated?

You would in your hole.

Let it go. The BLM have been exposed thoroughly and lost all credibility. Their defenders are looking increasingly sad and desperate.

It looks like you took those words or certainly the sentiment from virtually every thread on here which is specifically focused on travellers.

In fact, many of the same posters who engage on such threads are here decrying the BLM cause. I would be pretty sure many would be in favour of such an approach based on them having much less interaction with travellers than you outlined.

Do you want to take this person's words as representative of the sentiment of the entire BLM support?
Will you therefore accept the words of the Arkansas Sherriff then as being representative of the entire US police system? This is the man who repeatedly expressed his annoyance at his gf talking to a black man who he referred to as a N***** and said that she undermined him by doing so.

Snickers Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not really. There is a very long history in the US of long arms being less restricted than small ones. The vast majority of crimes to include homicides are carried out with pistols.

Well that's true of most jurisdictions. It's easier to get permission to use a rifle or a shotgun than a handgun in most places, I would think. Apart from Britain where all handguns are banned for everybody bar police and army.

But there are still restrictions on long weapons in most democracies. You can use them for hunting, or sporting purpose (clay pigeon shooting etc) but "patrolling" a built up area in a situation when there are many people on the street and in a volatile mood......?

Manic Moran wrote: »

The other is that 17-year-olds occasionally wander off in the woods on their own, and a rifle is a handy thing to bring along.

This is just sophistry of the most blatant type. Do you really think he was carrying a rifle in anticipation of meeting a feral pig or a bear in a downtown area?

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's the old phrase that God made all people in his image, Samuel Colt made them all equal.

Again, BS.
I know you are, or were, a soldier. Are you seriously telling me that your skill with a Colt, or a Glock or a Smith & Wesson is "equal" to that of, say, my 88 year old mother?
Would she have an equal chance of going up against you, or someone of less reputable character but with identical military training and experience, if you/they were both tooled up with similar weapons?
You're not showing much evidence of professional pride in your basic skill set.

Manic Moran wrote: »

But we seem to like our corollary that not only do we have the right to self defense, we also have the ability to practically exercise that right. We tried it the other way for a few decades, didn't seem to work out for us.

Wait. What we're seeing on our TV screens, or on our Twitter/YouTube feeds is American society "working"?

As the great Groucho Marx might have said: "That's a new meaning of the word with which I'm not familiar"

weldoninhio

Foxtrol wrote: »

As I pointed out in my previous post, he was repeatedly noted as the owner of the small business not an owner of the building.

One gets a lot more sympathy among the general public and it was the one they repeatedly lied to make him out to be

He must have worked damn hard and built up quite the reputation for the new owner to keep his name on the store. And he’s down rent, he’s gonna have to refit the building costing time and money.

Carfacemandog

weldoninhio wrote: »

He must have worked damn hard and built up quite the reputation for the new owner to keep his name on the store. And he’s down rent, he’s gonna have to refit the building costing time and money.

So why didn't they just say he was the land owner, instead of lying and pretending he was the business owner?

Do you think it has something tv o do with what foxtrol said in the post you quoted, or perhaps the fact that the business owner doesn't share the sentiment Trump is pushing?

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

I see Donald is now resorting to crisis actors as real owners don't want to be involved in his attempts to put more fuel on the fire

It doesn't change the fact that the BLM rioters burned out the businesses.

gozunda

BattleCorp wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that the BLM rioters burned out the businesses.

True. Nitpicking is much much more important. Fiddling while Rome burns as it were ...

Tell me how

How the civil rights era was viewed at the time.

The civil rights movement was deeply unpopular at the time. Most Americans thought it was going too far and movement activists were being too extreme. Some thought its goals were wrong; others that activists were going about it the wrong way—and most white Americans were happy with the status quo as it was. And so they criticized, monitored, demonized and at times criminalized those who challenged the way things were, making dissent very costly. Most modern tributes and understandings of the movement paper over the decades when activists like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and scores of their comrades were criticized by fellow citizens and targeted as “un-American,” not just by Southern politicians but by the federal government.

This last paragraph is particularly relevant.

As the world honors King’s life, it has become more comfortable to celebrate the civil rights movement of the 1960s as if its leaders were uncontroversial except among a small racist minority. Today, modern civil rights movements such as Black Lives Matter face charges of supposed “extremism,” the FBI has identified “Black Identity Extremism” as a new domestic threat, and the President slams NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for “disrespect[ing] our country.” We conveniently forget that King and Parks faced similar charges—missing the historical continuities in the ways Black critics of American injustice have been treated then and now.

Tell me how

Given that it is widely suggested that the protests are helping Trump in the polls, this is an interesting article.

Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials.

When you put this with the story of the Umbrella man and other reports such as this one.

Among the steady stream of threats from the far-right were repeated encounters between law enforcement and heavily armed adherents of the so-called boogaloo movement, which welcomes armed confrontation with cops as means to trigger civil war. With much of the U.S. policing apparatus on the hunt for antifa instigators, those violent aspirations appear to have materialized in a string of targeted attacks in California that left a federal protective services officer and a sheriff’s deputy dead and several other law enforcement officials wounded.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Given that it is widely suggested that the protests are helping Trump in the polls, this is an interesting article.



When you put this with the story of the Umbrella man and other reports such as this one.

That's kind of stupid though..if the far right were trying to engineer trouble they would have been out fighting back after a week of riots..

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

That's kind of stupid though..if the far right were trying to engineer trouble they would have been out fighting back after a week of riots..

It's madness...they'll be blaming the Russians next.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's madness...they'll be blaming the Russians next.

They were the other day..

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

That's kind of stupid though..if the far right were trying to engineer trouble they would have been out fighting back after a week of riots..

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's madness...they'll be blaming the Russians next.

So the police forces and federal agents are wrong?

Manic Moran

Snickers Man wrote: »

But there are still restrictions on long weapons in most democracies. You can use them for hunting, or sporting purpose (clay pigeon shooting etc) but "patrolling" a built up area in a situation when there are many people on the street and in a volatile mood......?

This is just sophistry of the most blatant type. Do you really think he was carrying a rifle in anticipation of meeting a feral pig or a bear in a downtown area?

Of course not. You were hypothesizing that there was little good about the law. That the laws may have been written with a different primary purpose, however, does not mean that the laws don't apply as written just as well in a downtown area as they do in the countryside. US jurisprudence gives great deference to the written letter of the law. If the law was intended to allow a 17-year-old to go hunting pigs, but the law also, as an accidental side-effect, permits a 17-year-old to go to a riot location with a rifle, then the 17-year-old can legally go to the riot with a rifle.

This is, of course, merely a hypothesis. It is, after all, also possible that the legislators intended that a 17-year-old can have a rifle in a downtown riot. After all, they can have private property to protect as well and riots can be dangerous events which require the use of a rifle for such protections. There is precedent. You'd have to ask the legislators.

The bottom line is we just don't know what they intended, but we do know what the laws say, they are a known set of rules of which everyone is aware.

Again, BS.
I know you are, or were, a soldier. Are you seriously telling me that your skill with a Colt, or a Glock or a Smith & Wesson is "equal" to that of, say, my 88 year old mother?
Would she have an equal chance of going up against you, or someone of less reputable character but with identical military training and experience, if you/they were both tooled up with similar weapons?
You're not showing much evidence of professional pride in your basic skill set.

If I had to choose between a fight with your 88 year old mother with both of us armed, and one with both of us unarmed, I'm going to go unarmed every time. It doesn't take much strength to pull a trigger, and there are ample cases of septuagenarians-and-older successfully using firearms for defense in the US. Age isn't the only distinguisher either. What if you're physically disabled, such as missing an arm? What would you say are your chances in a fisticuffs against a fully-abled person of the same age and gender?

Wait. What we're seeing on our TV screens, or on our Twitter/YouTube feeds is American society "working"?

With respect to carriage of firearms over recent decades, yes. If you look at the homicide rates over the past few decades, the widespread proliferation in recent years of people lawfully carrying firearms has not stopped the continued decrease in murders at the macro level, whilst having a positive effect at the micro level. (Note what I am not saying: I am not saying that the recent proliferation of firearms has contributed to the decrease in murders, that's a different issue entirely which has no evidence to support it that I am aware of).

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

How the civil rights era was viewed at the time.

This last paragraph is particularly relevant.

Relevant to whom exactly? Apparently not the current wave of violent protestors ...

These are just some of the responses from those who were involved in the civil rights movement in tte 1960s including black civil rights leaders and activists such as Rev. Cecil Murray, Najee Ali,  Earl Ofari Hutchinson and Barbara Ann Reynolds - all who have been critical of the tactics of BLM as being violent and damaging to the black rights movement.

"Longtime L.A. civil rights leaders dismayed by in-your-face tactics of new crop of activists"

~ https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-black-lives-matter-20151030-story.html

"I was a civil rights activist in the 1960s. But it's 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,."

~Barbara Ann Reynolds

Perhaps there is hope there that those supporting violence and hate could learn from Mr King?

Martin Luther King, Jr. worked hard to bring greater equality to America and ensure civil rights for all people, regardless of race. Notably, he brought publicity to major civil rights activities, emphasizing the importance of nonviolent protest.

In doing so, he modeled sound leadership to the African-American civil rights movement. What did Martin Luther King do to progress the civil rights movement? He stood as a pillar of hope and model of grace.

https://biography.yourdictionary.com/articles/martin-luther-king-progress-civil-rights-movement.html

biko

Foxtrol

gozunda wrote: »

Relevant to whom exactly? Apparently not the current wave of violent protestors ...

These are just some of the responses from those who were involved in the civil rights movement in tte 1960s including black civil rights leaders and activists such as Rev. Cecil Murray, Najee Ali,  Earl Ofari Hutchinson and Barbara Ann Reynolds - all who have been critical of the tactics of BLM as being violent and damaging to the black rights movement.

~ https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-black-lives-matter-20151030-story.html

~Barbara Ann Reynolds

Perhaps there is hope there that those supporting violence and hate could learn from Mr King?

https://biography.yourdictionary.com/articles/martin-luther-king-progress-civil-rights-movement.html

Despite the utter rubbish the sanitised 'your dictionary' biography you linked states, MLK actually faced the exact same kind of complaints by older members of his community regarding the tactics he and his fellow protesters took at the time. He also strongly called out those that claimed to support their protest and yet moaned about their methods

Despite it being repeated ad nauseam here as a fact, I've yet to see any evidence of BLM movement organisers supporting 'violence' any more than Trump/GOP/Right Wing media do. For the most part the BLM organisers are far quicker to condemn the violent actions of protesters than the other side are.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

Despite the utter rubbish the sanitised 'your dictionary' biography you linked states, MLK actually faced the exact same kind of complaints by older members of his community regarding the tactics he and his fellow protesters took at the time. He also strongly called out those that claimed to support their protest and yet moaned about their methods

Despite it being repeated ad nauseam here as a fact, I've yet to see any evidence of BLM movement organisers supporting 'violence' any more than Trump/GOP/Right Wing media do. For the most part the BLM organisers are far quicker to condemn the violent actions of protesters than the other side are.

You've literally had video of one of the BLM founders condoning looting as reparations. Why be so dishonest ?

brentanrodgers

Chicago police have released the following footage of looting. This is what BLM condones and encourages.

Tea drinker

Tell me how wrote: »

So the police forces and federal agents are wrong?

The guys shooting the black people?

Tell me how

brentanrodgers wrote: »

Chicago police have released the following footage of looting. This is what BLM condones and encourages.

They should all be prosecuted?

Where did you get that BLM condones and encourages this?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

They should all be prosecuted?

Where did you get that BLM condones and encourages this?

Again, why are you acting like you haven't seen this video?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1293247869793771521