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

Overheal

kildare lad wrote: »

What would you rather see, more spoilt rich white people go round burning everything to the ground ? You've got a weak mayor of portland whose a clown for bending over to the anarchists , of course people are gonna step up to stop entitled scumbags destroying everything

So you want to see more vigilantism and vigilante violence?

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

He was attacked by vicious white liberals who have been murdering people on the streets of the US for months now, not to mention the rioting and mayhem they have inflicted...he was lucky he had a gun on him or he would be dead.

This still dodges the question asked (so I won't even get into asking how one is to know who is attacking them is liberal, or been 'murdering people for months' - also, neither victim was a serial killer, lol).

Why does he deserve a medal for anything he did?

Do you want to see more vigilantism or less?

kildare lad

Overheal wrote: »

So you want to see more vigilantism and vigilante violence?

Maybe if your heros hadn't been burning everything to the ground then there wouldn't be a need for vigilanties

Overheal

kildare lad wrote: »

Many if your heros hadn't been burning everything to the ground maybe they wouldn't need vigilanties

This still doesn't answer the question,

also, nobody in this scenario is my "hero," God bless you.

edit: maybe this guy. It's a short list.

Silentcorner

Overheal wrote: »

This still dodges the question asked.

Why does he deserve a medal for anything he did?

Do you want to see more vigilantism or less?

There needs to be law and order full stop, these vicious white liberal thugs that are attacking innocent people, rioting, murdering, toppling statues need to be stopped...by the police...full stop.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

This does zilch to answer the question asked.

Why does he deserve a medal?

Are you opposed to or do you support vigilantism?

Depends on your definition of vigilantism.

Vigilantism from the Cambridge English Dictionary.

vigilantism
noun [ U ]

uk /ˌvɪdʒ.ɪˈlæn.tɪ.zəm/ us /ˌvɪdʒ.ɪˈlæn.t̬ɪ.zəm/


the practice of ordinary people in a place taking unofficial action to prevent crime or to catch and punish people believed to be criminals:

I'm fine with half of that definition. The part about taking action to prevent crime is perfectly fine by me.

I'm not in favour of people punishing those who they believe to be criminals, that's a job for the authorities. But then again, that's not what Rittenhouse did. He was acting as an unofficial security guard, was attacked and responed using deadly force. If he wasn't attacked, those people would still be alive and one guy would have full use of his arm.

To quote a schoolyard pun 'they started it'.

Rittenhouse didn't attempt to catch or punish anyone believed to be criminal.

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

There needs to be law and order full stop, these vicious white liberal thugs that are attacking innocent people, rioting, murdering, toppling statues need to be stopped...by the police...full stop.

So NO vigilantism, full stop.

So then why would a vigilante be deserving of a medal?!

kildare lad

Overheal wrote: »

This still doesn't answer the question,

also, nobody in this scenario is my "hero," God bless you.

edit: maybe this guy. It's a short list.

If you owned a business in Portland would you rather having armed people protecting property or have your blm/antifa pals burning everything down . Which would it be ?

Deebles McBeebles

Silentcorner wrote: »

There needs to be law and order full stop, these vicious white liberal thugs that are attacking innocent people, rioting, murdering, toppling statues need to be stopped...by the police...full stop.

What about the vicious white far-right militia groups? You know, the "stand by" guys? Or is it just BLM and Antifa who need to stop?

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Depends on your definition of vigilantism.



I'm fine with half of that definition. The part about taking action to prevent crime is perfectly fine by me.

I'm not in favour of people punishing those who they believe to be criminals, that's a job for the authorities. But then again, that's not what Rittenhouse did. He was acting as an unofficial security guard, was attacked and responed using deadly force. If he wasn't attacked, those people would still be alive and one guy would have full use of his arm.

To quote a schoolyard pun 'they started it'.

Rittenhouse didn't attempt to catch or punish anyone believed to be crim

I think that's bull here. Rittenhouse still was leagues away from home, this wasn't home defense this was Batman type ****: you go looking for trouble.

kildare lad

Overheal wrote: »

So NO vigilantism, full stop.

So then why would a vigilante be deserving of a medal?!

For shooting 3 convicted criminals who were trying to attack him , that deserves a medal in my book .

Silentcorner

Overheal wrote: »

So NO vigilantism, full stop.

So then why would a vigilante be deserving of a medal?!

I never said he did deserve a medal...I said the poor lad was lucky he had a gun or those thugs would have murdered him...that's why they were chasing him....thugs like those have been destroying American cities for months now, murdering, destroying and causing mayhem where ever they go.

Overheal

kildare lad wrote: »

If you owned a business in Portland would you rather having armed people protecting property or have your blm/antifa pals burning everything down . Which would it be ?

False dillema tbh. As though to say my only option to protect my business is to have armed goons outside patrolling my street, OR, that by NOT doing so, that 'everything will be burned down.' As though installing barriers or using fire retardant materials while doing so is beyond my ken. For way less than the cost of a goon squad, I could have the whole exterior outfitted with steel barricades and cameras in a solid afternoon via Home Depot.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

I think that's bull here. Rittenhouse still was leagues away from home, this wasn't home defense this was Batman type ****: you go looking for trouble.

Are you saying that there's a law saying that you can't be leagues away from home. Source please?

Once again you are showing your true colours. Ignore BLM protesters breaking the law and criticise anybody enforcing the law.

The BLM protesters attacked Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse attempted to flee (he did his best to avoid confrontation) and the BLM protesters chased and attacked him and only then did he resort to violence. Not quite the Batman type scenario you are suggesting.

Overheal

kildare lad wrote: »

For shooting 3 convicted criminals who were trying to attack him , that deserves a medal in my book .

He had no way of knowing the criminal history of any of them.

But you think the government should be handing out medals to people who go out and, for a bit of fun or whatever, go and shoot people who are ex felons? I fail to see the merit in that, if you could elaborate further on your stance that would be swell.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

He had no way of knowing the criminal history of any of them.

But you think the government should be handing out medals to people who go out and, for a bit of fun or whatever, go and shoot people who are ex felons? I fail to see the merit in that, if you could elaborate further on your stance that would be swell.

You know full well Rittenhouse didn't shoot them for being convicts. The fact that they were convicts is incidental. He shot them because they attacked him, chased him, assaulted him, tried to grab his rifle. He acted in self defence. It's actually on video.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are you saying that there's a law saying that you can't be leagues away from home.

Never said that, no.

Once again you are showing your true colours. Ignore BLM protesters breaking the law and criticise anybody enforcing the law.

I don't know what you are talking about but I am not the topic.

The BLM protesters attacked Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse attempted to flee (he did his best to avoid confrontation) and the BLM protesters chased and attacked him and only then did he resort to violence. Not quite the Batman type scenario you are suggesting.

The Joker's goons attacked Batman, Batman attempted to flee, and the goons chased and attacked him and he resorted to violence. Batman still suited up that day and drove off into the night (drove in by his mom, drove himself?) to go look for trouble, and/or follow the 'bat signal'

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

You know full well Rittenhouse didn't shoot them for being convicts. The fact that they were convicts is incidental. He shot them because they attacked him, chased him, assaulted him, tried to grab his rifle. He acted in self defence. It's actually on video.

I know it's incidental, edit: Kildare lad doesn't seem to agree with this though, that's what I had to address. /shrug

Why does it deserve a medal?

kildare lad

Overheal wrote: »

False dillema tbh. As though to say my only option to protect my business is to have armed goons outside patrolling my street, OR, that by NOT doing so, that 'everything will be burned down.' As though installing barriers or using fire retardant materials while doing so is beyond my ken. For way less than the cost of a goon squad, I could have the whole exterior outfitted with steel barricades and cameras in a solid afternoon via Home Depot.

So it's the business owners fault for not having barriers and or fire retardant, your something else . Sjw logic right there

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Never said that, no.

If there's no law against it, why did you bring it up?

I don't know what you are talking about but I am not the topic.

You know full well what I'm talking about. You are very biased towards BLM.

The Joker's goons attacked Batman, Batman attempted to flee, and the goons chased and attacked him and he resorted to violence. Batman still suited up that day and drove off into the night (drove in by his mom, drove himself?) to go look for trouble, and/or follow the 'bat signal'

You are talking sh1te there boss. I'll reword it for you.

The BLM goods attacked Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse attempted to flee. The BLM goons chased and attacked him and he resorted to self defence. Rittenhouse was as much entitled to be there as any BLM protester. At least Rittenhouse was there to protect property and not to destroy it like some of the BLM protesters/rioters.

Overheal

kildare lad wrote: »

So it's the business owners fault for not having barriers and or fire retardant, your something else . Sjw logic right there

Uh, let's talk logic for a second here: it was your premise that the owner had to either shell up for a goon squad or firearms, or face the fiery wrath of the arsonist agenda.

So let me push back on this and ask you the same question: So it's the business owners fault for not having firearms and militia/goons? #Logic

Recall, your premise:

If you owned a business in Portland would you rather having armed people protecting property or have your blm/antifa pals burning everything down . Which would it be ?

All I said is I would rather upgrade my physical security features, for the same relative cost (if not way less factoring the potential lawsuits and public liability) as hiring goons or buying weapons.

kildare lad

BattleCorp wrote: »

You know full well Rittenhouse didn't shoot them for being convicts. The fact that they were convicts is incidental. He shot them because they attacked him, chased him, assaulted him, tried to grab his rifle. He acted in self defence. It's actually on video.

Your wasting your time man . You may as well be talking to a wall as getting sense out of overheal and co. Three criminals out committing crimes, arson , assaults. They end up attacking someone and get shot and overheal blames the victim for shooting them . Some logic

Silentcorner

kildare lad wrote: »

Your wasting your time man . You may as well be talking to a wall as getting sense out of overheal and co. Three criminals out committing crimes, arson , assaults. They end up attacking someone and get shot and overheal blames the victim for shooting them . Some logic

They have convinced themselves are fighting fascists....by rioting, murdering political opponents, toppling statues, undermining law and order...you know, like fascists!!!

Deebles McBeebles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

How do you know its all fact? Because Andy on Twitter said so?

Nothing on this, no? I've shown you how he is biased and has previous, you've shown me nothing, yet his totally untrustworthy account will be posted here day after day to cheers of "f*cking BLM again" from the 10 users who still bother with this thread. This must be what Twitter is like.

Silentcorner wrote: »

There needs to be law and order full stop, these vicious white liberal thugs that are attacking innocent people, rioting, murdering, toppling statues need to be stopped...by the police...full stop.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

What about the vicious white far-right militia groups? You know, the "stand by" guys? Or is it just BLM and Antifa who need to stop?

Militia groups ok then? They don't enforce law and order and they aren't the police. I would think both extremes should be equally worthy of the hatred on here.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

If there's no law against it, why did you bring it up?

To object to the dodging of the question by bringing up wordplay with the semantics of "vigilantism."

Vigilantism is lawless. If someone claims to be for the standard, "Law and Order, period," vigilantism is incompatible with that standard.

kildare lad

Silentcorner wrote: »

They have convinced themselves are fighting fascists....by rioting, murdering political opponents, toppling statues, undermining law and order...you know, like fascists!!!

Criminals, social outcasts and losers, a great bunch of lads to get behind

Overheal

kildare lad wrote: »

Three criminals out committing crimes, arson , assaults.

Each of the 3? All of them engaged in a crime? committing arson? assault? Let's be specific please.

DaithiMa

Overheal wrote: »

The Joker's goons attacked Batman, Batman attempted to flee, and the goons chased and attacked him and he resorted to violence. Batman still suited up that day and drove off into the night (drove in by his mom, drove himself?) to go look for trouble, and/or follow the 'bat signal'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHOVwy4b6kI

Silentcorner

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Nothing on this, no? I've shown you how he is biased and has previous, you've shown me nothing, yet his totally untrustworthy account will be posted here day after day to cheers of "f*cking BLM again" from the 10 users who still bother with this thread. This must be what Twitter is like.





Militia groups ok then? They don't enforce law and order and they aren't the police. I would think both extremes should be equally worthy of the hatred on here.

Militias, Antifa, White liberals, I don't care what you call them...anybody who burns down cities, murders innocent people, riots, loots and intimidates should face the full force of the law....that's if it hasn't been defunded that is!!!!

Overheal

Silentcorner wrote: »

Militias, Antifa, White liberals, I don't care what you call them...anybody who burns down cities, murders innocent people, riots, loots and intimidates should face the full force of the law....that's if it hasn't been defunded that is!!!!

Completely agree.

The full force of the law includes the due process of that law. Killing your suspect during an arrest short circuits the full force of the law. After all, lethal force is not the only force at the law's disposal.