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

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

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?

weldoninhio

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..

BattleCorp

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.

Foxtrol

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 defense

Broadstone Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

Like, they just come across as half retarded..

They come across as, dare I say it, racist.

Broadstone Bob

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.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

weldoninhio

[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.

Phoebas

gozunda wrote: »

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 '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.

gozunda

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...

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 much

drunkmonkey911

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rawsmedia/status/1299875557568655364?s=20

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.

gozunda

Phoebas wrote: »

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.

Foxtrol

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 else

BorneTobyWilde

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.

drunkmonkey911

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.

Phoebas

gozunda wrote: »

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.

Tipperary animal lover

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?

Foxtrol

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.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

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 else

Foxtrol wrote: »

You'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.

gozunda

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.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

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?

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.

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 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.



Answer these questions please.

Was KR being chased?
Did KR have something thrown at him?
Did KR have someone try take his firearm?

We've seen protesters burn out vehicles before, yet you're expecting restraint from those trapped and surrounded by a mob visibly carrying weapons.

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.

Foxtrol

gozunda wrote: »

So leaving the fantasy side of your comment for just a minute.

This scuffle between teenagers is relevant how?

As relevant as all the posters have been raising the history of KR's victims.

I explicitly noted in my post that the video is relevant if the defense try to say anything about KR's character, as it opens the door to the prosecution to bring this and everything else in his history (like why he got turned down when applying for the military).

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 much

KR repeatedly hits her in the head from behind, where she can't see it coming (basically the definition of a sucker punch).

So you're fine with a guy punching a woman? Classy stuff but not unexpected

Cody montana

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

Wasn't there a trumpeter killed in portland last night by a leftist?

Self defense!

Broadstone Bob

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.

He could not physically pull the trigger as his upper arm was blown to pieces.
A far left BLM supporter shot dead a far right trump supporter last night. From the grainy footage it looked pretty clinical too.

Also if anyone still cares Fox News interviewed the reporter who witnessed the Rittenhouse shooting and had new CCTV footage from a building next to the car lot.
Higher elevation than anything else we have seen and it clearly shows Rittenhouse was cornered as there was a mob smashing up all the cars. When Rittenhouse lets off his shots they all run away and it looks like one guy raises his arm as if he is firing a gun which could account for the unaccounted shots heard in the other videos.

gozunda

Phoebas wrote: »

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.

Yup Watched the video - evidently you must have watched a very different one!

And again that's some Olypic standard hair splitting going on there regarding accusing him of bias. Well done.

I reckon you should just drop the shovel, and walk away from the hole you just dug for yourself before you fall in headfirst. Thanks.

Gerry Hatrick

These looters will hand Trump the election. Massive backlash in America against these thugs.

Biden has picked the wrong side.

BattleCorp

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

These looters will hand Trump the election. Massive backlash in America against these thugs.

Biden has picked the wrong side.

I'd absolutely hate to live in the States right now. Fcukin crazy place.

Any time I'm over there I'm always amazed at the poverty that's there, even in wealthy areas such as CA.

Gerry Hatrick

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd absolutely hate to live in the States right now. Fcukin crazy place.

Any time I'm over there I'm always amazed at the poverty that's there, even in wealthy areas such as CA.

A lot of democrat cities have completely disintegrated into anarchy. I was in San Francisco last year on a business trip, absolute mess. A childhood friend who's lived in Manhattan since 1997 and started a family with his American wife are moving to Dallas as NY crime is gone through the roof.

gozunda

Foxtrol wrote: »

As relevant as all the posters have been raising the history of KR's victims.

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.

Foxtrol wrote:

I explicitly noted in my post that the video is relevant if the defense try to say anything about KR's character, as it opens the door to the prosecution to bring this and everything else in his history (like why he got turned down when applying for the military).
KR repeatedly hits her in the head from behind, where she can't see it coming (basically the definition of a sucker punch).

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.

foxtroll wrote:

So you're fine with a guy punching a woman? Classy stuff but not unexpected

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.

BattleCorp

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

A lot of democrat cities have completely disintegrated into anarchy. I was in San Francisco last year on a business trip, absolute mess. A childhood friend who's lived in Manhattan since 1997 and started a family with his American wife are moving to Dallas as NY crime is gone through the roof.

I was in SF in October last year. I spent 2 days in the city and didn't really feel safe while I was there. It was like a zombie wasteland. Spend the rest of the holiday travelling around Napa, Mountain View etc. That was lovely. Very different there compared to the city. The city is a cess pit.

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

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.

Big difference between asking a question and jumping in when I'm correcting another poster, at the time not acknowledging the other poster was wrong, and trying to change the subject.

We've gone around and around in circles on the KR shooting, including the point you're making now. Is it worth doing it again? I don't believe he can claim to have withdrawn after instigating, it wasn't reasonable force, he shot recklessly, which impacts other self defense claims

Broadstone Bob

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

He could not physically pull the trigger as his upper arm was blown to pieces.
A far left BLM supporter shot dead a far right trump supporter last night. From the grainy footage it looked pretty clinical too.

Also if anyone still cares Fox News interviewed the reporter who witnessed the Rittenhouse shooting and had new CCTV footage from a building next to the car lot.
Higher elevation than anything else we have seen and it clearly shows Rittenhouse was cornered as there was a mob smashing up all the cars. When Rittenhouse lets off his shots they all run away and it looks like one guy raises his arm as if he is firing a gun which could account for the unaccounted shots heard in the other videos.

This is the interview with the footage. It actually looks like its from a drone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=fMvVLQaMulw&feature=emb_logo

Gerry Hatrick

BattleCorp wrote: »

I was in SF in October last year. I spent 2 days in the city and didn't really feel safe while I was there. It was like a zombie wasteland. Spend the rest of the holiday travelling around Napa, Mountain View etc. That was lovely. Very different there compared to the city. The city is a cess pit.

Napa is beautiful, some of the finest wines in the world also. Rode from there to lake tahoe on my motorbike few years back.

Yeah would not be returning to SF again in a hurry.

Phoebas

gozunda wrote: »

Yup Watched the video - evidently you must have watched a very different one!

And again that's some Olypic standard hair splitting going on there regarding accusing him of bias. Well done.

I reckon you should just drop the shovel, and walk away from the hole you just dug for yourself before you fall in headfirst. Thanks.

We've already established that you didn't watch the video when you denied in post 3839 that he advocates in the video for the USCCA, so we don't need to go there again (and I'm being charitable here, because it's quite possible that you were just lying about that).

I think it's clear that the video isn't objective. I don't have a problem with that and it's a good video, the guy makes good points and it's well worth a watch. But viewers will be aware that it's not an objective opinion, but it's delivered by a guy who goes on to promote legal insurance for people who may find themselves in exactly the same circumstance as Kyle Rittenhouse.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

Big difference between asking a question and jumping in when I'm correcting another poster, at the time not acknowledging the other poster was wrong, and trying to change the subject.

Maybe the other poster is wrong. I'll humour you. The other poster is wrong, does that make you happy.

But I'll still say it doesn't matter if the other poster is wrong because someone fired a shot while KR was being chased and it's reasonable to think that KR may have thought the shot was at him.

We've gone around and around in circles on the KR shooting, including the point you're making now. Is it worth doing it again? I don't believe he can claim to have withdrawn after instigating, it wasn't reasonable force, he shot recklessly, which impacts other self defense claims

He didn't shoot recklessly. He shot his attacker. Shooting recklessly would be shooting wildly at everyone nearby. He clearly didn't do that.

And you still haven't answered my questions.

Was KR being chased?
Was something thrown at KR?
Did someone try grab his gun?

I'll add in a new question. Did someone fire a shot while KR was being chased?

Tipperary animal lover

Cody montana wrote: »

Self defense!

Maybe so but the comment he said was the left are incapable of using a fire arm against another person which is bullllll****#, the BLM crowd have been shown up everytime to be just as bad the crowd their protesting against.

Broadstone Bob

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

These looters will hand Trump the election. Massive backlash in America against these thugs.

Biden has picked the wrong side.

Ive been reading conspiracy theories that the dems have not only been allowing the violence and looting to happen as they hope it will damage trump but also that they are persuading people to donate money to charities which are paying the bail money for protestors who are arrested. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases to bail out pretty violent individuals.
Could be total BS. If it is true it has backfired monumentaly

Carfacemandog

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

This is the interview with the footage. It actually looks like its from a drone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=fMvVLQaMulw&feature=emb_logo

Whenever Tucker Carlson gets a writer from his outlet The Daily Caller (which he founded) to back up what his writers on FOX are promoting, I get pretty sceptical.

I watched the video, but can't see what you are claiming about Rittenhouse being cornered - is it the clip at 40secs into the video you are referring to? When it cuts to the video, the people have already began rushing away from the cars as the Rittenhouse had already fired. Most likely
they have the footage from the moments before then on hand which would have shown if he was cornered or not, so why didn't they show it?

Can you timestamp where Rittenhouse is shown to be cornered by others?

BattleCorp

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Can you timestamp where Rittenhouse is shown to be cornered by others?

Even if he wasn't cornered (open to debate), he was still being chased, he still had stuff thrown at him and he still had someone reach for his firearm. All three of those can be considered assault under Wisconsin law. Being assaulted is grounds for self-defence.

gozunda

Phoebas wrote: »

We've already established that you didn't watch the video when you denied in post 3839 that he advocates in the video for the USCCA, so we don't need to go there again (and I'm being charitable here, because it's quite possible that you were just lying about that).I think it's clear that the video isn't objective. I don't have a problem with that and it's a good video, the guy makes good points and it's well worth a watch. But viewers will be aware that it's not an objective opinion, but it's delivered by a guy who goes on to promote legal insurance for people who may find themselves in exactly the same circumstance as Kyle Rittenhouse.

"We" lol. What "We" as in the Queen,?
I see you've now moved from the Africian American Laywer being biased in the video to not being objective now lol. Anything else you'd like to throw at the gentleman in question? Perhaps he likes a drink. Maybe that makes him an alcoholic in your world view?

I said he supported legal gun ownership. So get you're facts straight. You can chose to read my comment whichever way you want. Your comment is still bollics and does nothing for your argument that this African American Lawyer is biased towards Kyle Rittenhouse because he supports legal gun ownership. But you know that already .

Edit:

This is post 3839

Does he? I read the transcript and watched the video. And imo he gives a fairly balanced anslysis of the legalities of the situation incuding the legalities of gun ownership.

By specifically pointing out he evidently supports legal gun ownership - it would appear you do have a problem with that issue tbh. If he was white - would you accuse him of being biased?

But yes I agree let the lynch mobs be answerable elsewhere. The matter will be dealt with in a court of law..

You will note I deny nothing in that comment. I do ask you to clarify your accusations of bias by asking "Does he". So back at you. Evidently there's only one poster "lying" And its not this one.

Phoebas

∆ You're not even trying now.

Silentcorner

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Ive been reading conspiracy theories that the dems have not only been allowing the violence and looting to happen as they hope it will damage trump but also that they are persuading people to donate money to charities which are paying the bail money for protestors who are arrested. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases to bail out pretty violent individuals.
Could be total BS. If it is true it has backfired monumentaly

It's not a conspiracy theory at all...just look at the actions of the Mayors of Seattle and Portland etc who have facilitated anarchy on their streets...how many others have refused Federal assistance over the last three months?

Plenty of Hollywood actors donated to fund the bail of the anarchists and boasted about it encouraging others to do the same, that is not a theory.

They have completely over played their hand in the most damaging manner possible, they have cities that have been hit hard by the destruction, murder and mayhem, and an electorate who are deserting them...in the hope that ordinary people blame the President for a mess they refuse help to clean up, even from here, that is lunacy!!!!

Broadstone Bob

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Whenever Tucker Carlson gets a writer from his outlet The Daily Caller (which he founded) to back up what his writers on FOX are promoting, I get pretty sceptical.

I watched the video, but can't see what you are claiming about Rittenhouse being cornered - is it the clip at 40secs into the video you are referring to? When it cuts to the video, the people have already began rushing away from the cars as the Rittenhouse had already fired. Most likely
they have the footage from the moments before then on hand which would have shown if he was cornered or not, so why didn't they show it?

Can you timestamp where Rittenhouse is shown to be cornered by others?

I didn't know that about Carlson. Ill definitely keep that in mind in future. I tend to just believe videos at this stage with all the misinformation.

Video starts at 39sec and you can see Rittenhouse being chased beside the car when it starts. Some people are already running as shots from another protestor had already been fired and but has to be about 25-30 people still around the cars

(in other phone footage from the front of the car lot you can see they were smashing the cars up but couldn't tell how many was there)

LessOutragePlz

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy theory at all...just look at the actions of the Mayors of Seattle and Portland etc who have facilitated anarchy on their streets...how many others have refused Federal assistance over the last three months?

Plenty of Hollywood actors donated to fund the bail of the anarchists and boasted about it encouraging others to do the same, that is not a theory.

They have completely over played their hand in the most damaging manner possible, they have cities that have been hit hard by the destruction, murder and mayhem, and an electorate who are deserting them...in the hope that ordinary people blame the President for a mess they refuse help to clean up, even from here, that is lunacy!!!!

Even the bookie's have noticed this trend as Trump's odds of winning in November have shortened from 6/4 in the last few weeks to evens at the moment.

Dyr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Even the bookie's have noticed this trend as Trump's odds of winning in November have shortened from 6/4 in the last few weeks to evens at the moment.

The likes of BLM want Trump to win, basic Marxist doctrine.

They won't stop if Biden wins either.

Gerry Hatrick

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Even the bookie's have noticed this trend as Trump's odds of winning in November have shortened from 6/4 in the last few weeks to evens at the moment.

The Democrats need to get Biden out and talking. Their chances are evaporating rapidly if the looting and violence continues.

Everyone knows black lives matter but people's safety matters more.

Carfacemandog

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even if he wasn't cornered (open to debate), he was still being chased, he still had stuff thrown at him and he still had someone reach for his firearm. All three of those can be considered assault under Wisconsin law. Being assaulted is grounds for self-defence.

As best I understand it he was being chased after having shot the first person dead. And the reason I am asking if he was cornered is because that is what the poster was claiming, so it is pretty important information regarding their post.

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

I didn't know that about Carlson. Ill definitely keep that in mind in future. I tend to just believe videos at this stage with all the misinformation.

Video starts at 39sec and you can see Rittenhouse being chased beside the car when it starts. Some people are already running as shots from another protestor had already been fired and but has to be about 25-30 people still around the cars

(in other phone footage from the front of the car lot you can see they were smashing the cars up but couldn't tell how many was there)

No problem re Carlson, disingenuousness is something he has a genuinely incredible talent for.

That video however does show people around the cars, but it does not show Rittenhouse surrounded as you stated. He shot, people chased him - the video starts right as they had begun to chase. Its hard to tell but looks like it was likely recording prior to the part we have seen, which makes me curious why they cut out what happened before unless it didn't suit their claims.

Dyr

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

Napa is beautiful, some of the finest wines in the world also. Rode from there to lake tahoe on my motorbike few years back.

Yeah would not be returning to SF again in a hurry.

Apparently people were bailing on SF and LA due the decline of both cities in terms of safety but the WFH phenomenon has turned this into a flood now.

NY, LA and SF all worrying that their tax base is walking on them.

Manic Moran

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.

Broadstone Bob

Carfacemandog wrote: »

As best I understand it he was being chased after having shot the first person dead. And the reason I am asking if he was cornered is because that is what the poster was claiming, so it is pretty important information regarding their post.

No problem re Carlson, disingenuousness is something he has a genuinely incredible talent for.

That video however does show people around the cars, but it does not show Rittenhouse surrounded as you stated. He shot, people chased him - the video starts right as they had begun to chase. Its hard to tell but looks like it was likely recording prior to the part we have seen, which makes me curious why they cut out what happened before unless it didn't suit their claims.

Apologies, if I said surrounded I meant cornered i.e. Rosenbaum had chased him to the cars were there was over 20 people smashing the cars up so presumably with bars etc.
As soon as the video starts you can see 2 people running up to the cars in the well it part of the video. Thats Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. At 41 seconds you can Rosenbaum start to fall after being shot.

I think it may be drone footage. if so it would have been videoing the BLM protestors destroying the cars and the only thing they have cut is Rosenbaum throwing the object at him.