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

Tell me how

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's my take on things.

Many would consider Rittenhouse a hero for trying to defend other people's property and others vilify him for it. If it was in Ireland (leaving aside the gun element for a minute), and Rittenhouse was trying to stop someone from burning down a car garage he'd be commended. He wouldn't be called a vigilante etc. for trying to stop someone from damaging private property. But here's the rub. He foolishly inserted himself in that situation. He did it the wrong way. He did it in a way that he wasn't entitled to do because it was against the law for him to be armed there. He apparently broke several laws by having the gun there. So, let him face the full rigours of the law for that.

Now on to the shootings.

The first shooting - self defence in my mind due to my points below. Feel free to correct me if I've made any errors.

I've seen a video of Rittenhouse running with several people chasing him. I don't know what led up to that incident but someone chasing Rittenhouse threw something at him. Some on here are saying that it was a plastic bag. It certainly wasn't an empty plastic bag but I don't know exactly what was in it. That doesn't really matter though as throwing something at someone would be considered assault. As would chasing someone in those circumstances.

Rittenhouse was being chased by a mob and knew he was getting an ass kicking or worse if he was caught so he apparently turned around and shot someone in the head. If a mob chase you and attempt to assault you by throwing something at you, then why is it considered murder when you shoot someone attempting to kick your ass? That's self-defence in my book. And yes, Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in that position but that doesn't change the fact that it looks like self-defence.

The second and third shooting - Self-defence in my mind due to video evidence clearly showing him being chased and assaulted.

This part of the story is very clear. Lads swinging at him with skateboards, trying to jump and kick him when he was on the ground etc. That's self-defence right there.

Notice how I'm not bringing anyone's past convictions into this. That's immaterial. I'm just judging people on their actions. It does appear that they were assaulting/attempting to assault him.

I wouldn't prosecute Rittenhouse for the three people who were attacking him being shot.

But here's an extra charge that I would prosecute Rittenhouse for.

He recklessly discharged a few shots towards the crowd after he shot the guy in the arm. There was nobody near him at that point and that was completely unneccessary. And let him face the full rigours of the law for that.

This is laughable. To suggest someone armed themselves and drove x number of miles and across state lines and put themselves in to the middle of a situation where they ended up killing 2 people did so to keep themselves safe is nonsense that even Fox News might think twice about saying.

And to then use an argument that the second killing was self defence when the people attacking him knew he was armed and had been shooting would suggest that any terrorist in a gun fight was only shooting to defend themselves.

And then the cherry on top of this pile of waffle is the suggestion that the full rigour of the law be applied to him for wilfully endangering people. I mean, wow, this is quite the view on what went on. That would be similar to police threatening to throw the book at someone for not having an NCT after they used their car to target pedestrians.

BattleCorp

dog_pig wrote: »

Is there footage of him firing towards the crowd? From the videos I've seen it appears that those gunshots are coming from somewhere else.

Granted, I didn't go through the video clip forensically but that's what I initially thought.

Jimbob1977

Kenosha appears relatively quiet last night.

The biggest news story was a food truck intercepted on the edge of town.

It's a food truck from Portland that gives out free meals to protesters.

The police found materials that were inconsistent with a food truck, like fireworks and liquid accelerant.

Unfortunately there is much rumour and false information. Initially some locals thought it was a van bomb and word spread on Facebook.

The weekend begins tonight. People will have more time on their hands.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry? What "millitias"?

And really?

White supremacists?

And no, I don't know their religion, race or the sexual orientation of most supporters of BLM or detractors of BLM who post on boards.

Do you?

I assume they are mostly white as it's an Irish website and Ireland is predominantly white.

I see no sign of white supremacist behaviour though.

Militias
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/27/906566596/alleged-kenosha-shooter-fervently-supported-blue-lives-joined-local-militia

#lawandorder

Cupatae

Cupatae wrote: »

So because we don't instantly brand the lad a murderer for defending himself that in your head = white supremacists

Bravo that is prob the best mental gymnastics I've seen on here, and that's saying something you ve some tough comp for the spot!

You are defending a person who was illegally carrying a weapon who shot somebody who threw a plastic bag at him. Mental gymnastics indeed

Cupatae

Cupatae wrote: »

Only here can a child be set upon by 4 men and attacked , he then defends himself and but by some amazing mental gymnastics something close to a magic trick ! He is branded as criminal it's hilarious honestly.

But he is only one wait till more take up arms to put this mob down and defend there cities and property, play times over BLM sympathy is running out and people will start fighting back against riots and looting.

Needless violence and bloodshed caused by BLM and In the end it will all be for nothing, BLM organization will be filthy rich , but the black community will by in large remain in the same state if not worse! I'd imagine alot of people are starting to associate them with violence and racism.

This is completely undoing what MLK stood for and is a disgrace.

He illegally was carrying an AR15 in Kenosha that night. Are you so blinded by your idealogy that you can't see that he broke the law even in that instance?

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

This is laughable. To suggest someone armed themselves and drove x number of miles and across state lines and put themselves in to the middle of a situation where they ended up killing 2 people did so to keep themselves safe is nonsense that even Fox News might think twice about saying.

Clearly we disagree.

Yes, he broke the law by arming himself and driving across state lines and put himself in that position. That was illegal so prosecute him for that. Nobody is denying or defending that. Prosecute the fcuk out of him for that.

But don't forget that there is video evidence that seems to show him being chased and having stuff thrown at him. That is assault right there so I think his actions were justified.

Just because he broke laws by having the gun doesn't mean that he has no right to defend himself. And it does appear that he was being attacked. Or do you disagree that he was being attacked?

And to then use an argument that the second killing was self defence when the people attacking him knew he was armed and had been shooting would suggest that any terrorist in a gun fight was only shooting to defend themselves.

It looks like he was being chased and assaulted in the lead-up to the first shooting so arguably that is self-defence, not an act of terrorism. Therefore the mob were wrong to attack him prior to the second and third shooting.

And then the cherry on top of this pile of waffle is the suggestion that the full rigour of the law be applied to him for wilfully endangering people. I mean, wow, this is quite the view on what went on. That would be similar to police threatening to throw the book at someone for not having an NCT after they used their car to target pedestrians.

Do you not think he wilfully endangerd people when he stood up after the third shooting and shot towards the crowd?

shutup

Life is tough at the moment. This positive story has really cheered me up.
Stay safe everyone. Don’t riot. Don’t attack people.

Tell me how

shutup wrote: »

Life is tough at the moment. This positive story has really cheered me up.
Stay safe everyone. Don’t riot. Don’t attack people.

Man shot 7 times unnecessarily
Vigilantes being aided and abetted by police
17 year old travelling across state lines with assault rifle after being incited to do so by the President.

Uber cool Boards poster, 'this positive story has cheered me up'.
Scary thing is you probably mean it.

Gerry Hatrick

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The players were suddenly reminded that TV pays the bills.

No play, no pay.

Go woke, go broke

Tell me how

BattleCorp wrote: »

Clearly we disagree.

Yes, he broke the law by arming himself and driving across state lines and put himself in that position. That was illegal so prosecute him for that. Nobody is denying or defending that. Prosecute the fcuk out of him for that.

But don't forget that there is video evidence that seems to show him being chased and having stuff thrown at him. That is assault right there so I think his actions were justified.

Just because he broke laws by having the gun doesn't mean that he has no right to defend himself. And it does appear that he was being attacked. Or do you disagree that he was being attacked?





It looks like he was being chased and assaulted in the lead-up to the first shooting so arguably that is self-defence, not an act of terrorism. Therefore the mob were wrong to attack him prior to the second and third shooting.



Do you not think he wilfully endangerd people when he stood up after the third shooting and shot towards the crowd?

What I think is he should be tried and will hopefully be convicted of first-degree intentional homicide. That's it.

shutup

Tell me how wrote: »

Man shot 7 times unnecessarily
Vigilantes being aided and abetted by police
17 year old travelling across state lines with assault rifle after being incited to do so by the President.

Uber cool Boards poster, 'this positive story has cheered me up'.
Scary thing is you probably mean it.

I do mean it. I’ve watched it 30 times laughing my head off. Rioting is disgraceful. Theres now two less rioters to worry about. Hopefully this puts off more criminals attacking people and bullying average people going about their day.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

White supremecists for thinking that a white kid shooting a white man in self defence was justified?? Your post is embarrassing.

We will see if a court of law will find it self defence. I presume that will be unlikely as he was illegally carrying a weapon so use of the weapon involved pre-meditation. Hopefully he will get a long sentence to rein in the gun nuts and their apologists.

shutup

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We will see if a court of law will find it self defence. I presume that will be unlikely as he was illegally carrying a weapon. He carried a gun with him knowing it was illegal.

That doesn’t matter to the Murder versus self defence decision in the court case.
He could be charged with a separate gun carry offence if he broke that law by having the gun in the first place.

shutup

shutup wrote: »

That doesn’t matter to the Murder versus self defence decision in the court case.
He could be charged with a separate gun carry offence if he broke that law by having the gun in the first place.

Illegally carrying a weapon implies an element of pre-meditation.

Tell me how

shutup wrote: »

I do mean it. I’ve watched it 30 times laughing my head off. Rioting is disgraceful. Theres now two less rioters to worry about. Hopefully this puts off more criminals attacking people and bullying average people going about their day.

Thought people like you were supposed to be concerned about armed gang members, not laughing at them killing people.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

You are defending a person who was illegally carrying a weapon who shot somebody who threw a plastic bag at him. Mental gymnastics indeed;)

I'm not defending him for illegally carrying a weapon. Where did I say that? I am however making a case that the shootings may have been self-defence. Clearly we disagree on this point.

Regarding the first shooting and the throwing of a plastic bag. How would Rittenhouse know it was a plastic bag? He was fleeing from a mob who were trying to attack him.

I don't know what was thrown at him because the video is very grainy but if it was a plastic bag, it certainly wasn't an empty plastic bag. Would you be ok if I threw a plastic bag at you that contained a brick?

No matter what the circumstances were that led to Rittenhouse being there, once he was assaulted, then an argument can be made for self-defence.

Broadstone Bob

BattleCorp wrote: »

Clearly we disagree.

Yes, he broke the law by arming himself and driving across state lines and put himself in that position. That was illegal so prosecute him for that. Nobody is denying or defending that. Prosecute the fcuk out of him for that.

But don't forget that there is video evidence that seems to show him being chased and having stuff thrown at him. That is assault right there so I think his actions were justified.

Just because he broke laws by having the gun doesn't mean that he has no right to defend himself. And it does appear that he was being attacked. Or do you disagree that he was being attacked?





It looks like he was being chased and assaulted in the lead-up to the first shooting so arguably that is self-defence, not an act of terrorism. Therefore the mob were wrong to attack him prior to the second and third shooting.



Do you not think he wilfully endangerd people when he stood up after the third shooting and shot towards the crowd?

There is a very good interview with the journalist who provided first aid to the first victim. Well worth watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGb3Qv4_gZI&feature=emb_logo

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

Illegally carrying a weapon implies an element of pre-meditation.

Illegally carrying a weapon doesn't give others the right to assault you.

shutup

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Illegally carrying a weapon implies an element of pre-meditation.

I don’t think it does. I hope I’m right and you hope I’m wrong because we seem to be on different sides of the initial argument.
As you said we will see. I think a lesser illegal gun carry charge will be brought against him.
We can both agree he’s got a good shot.

Tell me how

BattleCorp wrote: »

Illegally carrying a weapon doesn't give others the right to assault you.

Some here thinks it is sufficient reason for cops to shoot you 7 times in the back, even when you don't have the weapon on you.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Illegally carrying a weapon doesn't give others the right to assault you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown_Cemetery_attack

To give an irish example, the people attending the funeral in Milltown were in the wrong and Michael Stone was in the right?

Tipperary animal lover

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We will see if a court of law will find it self defence. I presume that will be unlikely as he was illegally carrying a weapon so use of the weapon involved pre-meditation. Hopefully he will get a long sentence to rein in the gun nuts and their apologists.

So did this gaige guy, seems he has been in trouble with the law before and carrying a gun 40miles from he's home town, I'd say he was out for a drive an took a wrong turn, a gofundme has been set up for this scumbag ... crazy UNITED States of America

ThunbergsAreGo

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

https://twitter.com/i/status/1299210902206521346
Really doing BLM a service Here, the more and more I see these types of recordings the more I feel sorry for the normal American person

These are just complete nutcases outlooking for attention and their 5 minutes of fame.

The problem is that this is a very easy question to answer - the killing of black, white, asian, latino people is a bad thing. I wish there was less of it.

However if the deaths of black people are the issue (and I still don't understand why there is such a focus on race - is a black death worth more than a latino etc.), then targeting drug wars, and civilian on civilian violence, which kills many many more should be the issue.

Broadstone Bob

shutup wrote: »

I don’t think it does. I hope I’m right and you hope I’m wrong because we seem to be on different sides of the initial argument.
As you said we will see. I think a lesser illegal gun carry charge will be brought against him.
We can both agree he’s got a good shot.

He has been charged with "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18"
Class A misdemeanour with 9 mths in prison max

Tell me how

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

Go woke, go broke

Colin Kapernick took a knee.
Angry conservatives: 'Do your job!!!'

People went on marches.
Angry conservatives: 'You should protest peacefully'

Professional teams refused to play games.
Angry conservatives: 'How dare you!!!!'


Be honest, angry conservatives just want them to sit down and shut up.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown_Cemetery_attack

To give an irish example, the people attending the funeral in Milltown were in the wrong and Michael Stone was in the right?

Stone clearly was the one who initiated the violence in that case so I've no problem with what the people attending the funeral did.

Who initiated the violence in Rittenhouse's case? From the video it looks like the rioters did that by chasing Rittenhouse and throwing stuff at him. If the first shooting was self defence, then so too was the second and third shooting.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown_Cemetery_attack

To give an irish example, the people attending the funeral in Milltown were in the wrong and Michael Stone was in the right?

This is pointless, as there is different standards in different countries.

RasTa

He shot the first dude 5 times, people chased him. He shot two more.

He's fecked. Madness he wasn't arrested on the spot.

superflyninja

Tell me how wrote: »

Colin Kapernick took a knee.
Angry conservatives: 'Do your job!!!'

People went on marches.
Angry conservatives: 'You should protest peacefully'

Professional teams refused to play games.
Angry conservatives: 'How dare you!!!!'


Be honest, angry conservatives just want them to sit down and shut up.

Are you serious? So there are no riots over there? It's all 100 percent peaceful and the problem is angry conservatives?