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

Broadstone Bob

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

If only America had non biased news coverage like this on their networks instead of the grandstanding propaganda we get from CNN and Fox.

He seems very fair and knowledgeable.

He believes the cops who shot the guy in the back 7 times where incompetent and should be held accountable.
He believes Rittenhouse was acting itself defence and should be acquitted.

Unlike it seems everyone else in the media and social media who has to be either hard right nut jobs or hard left nut jobs with no ability to think for themselves.

BattleCorp

Sand wrote: »

I dont think that happened. There were shots fired before he shot the first attacker, and shots fired after he he shot the third attacker. But that was a different shooter, presumably among the mob. Immediately after he shot the third guy he had another attacker throw his hands up and back off as he kept the rifle on him. He wasn't shooting into the crowd.

I'm not 100% sure either as I didn't forensically go through the video. The investigation into the shootings will determine that one way or the other.

Gerry Hatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Celebrating a spree shooter... Gotta wonder what levels certain posters will sink to.

But he wasn't a spree shooter. Purest dry cut case of self defence you'll ever see.

Feisar

Cupatae wrote: »

Yeah it was controlled shooting, in self defense, he clearly wasn't out to kill at random but defend himself and he did well to get out of it alive and showed good shooting skills and restraint not to shoot the 3rd lad that surrendered for a lad of 17 being attacked by 3 men.

I dont think he ll be convicted of any murder, and rightly so he's not the mass shooter blm are trying to paint him as he literally was forced into shooting by the actions of the BLM protesters some of whom were armed with guns aswell.

Again more blood on the hands of BLM those 2 lads lost there lives needlessly, only being misled by a disgraceful media spin and BLM.

What the hell was he doing there in the first place? "Oh I'll pop down and offer my skillz as a medic. No the AR15 won't inflame anyone."

On the other hand who the hell tries to take on a lad with a rifle? And he was carrying it like he had training, muscle memory wound have ya dropped before he know what he was doing. Play stupid games win stupid prizes and all that.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

What ever about the first person he murdered, can you explain how it was self defence to shoot the second and third person who were trying to disarm him. He murdered two young father's. That's gotta weigh heavy on his soul.
No justification. He shot three people. I wonder if he has any remorse.

There is total justification for his actions. You're merely biased against him.

I'm sure he will be checking and rechecking his decisions. He's a 17 year old kid, not a psycho. But apart from actually being there in the first place, I would be certain he'll realise he couldn't have done anything differently.

BattleCorp

Sand wrote: »

You've clearly not seen the interview with him prior to the shooting. He's not a psycho desperately seeking to kill someone.

I don't think he was a psycho but I do think he was very naive by doing things that he wasn't old enough to do legally.

I do think he made poor choices but I still think the three shootings were self-defence.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

I've worked in hospitals my whole life and I've never seen a medic carry a AR15

Where? In Ireland or the States?

Sand

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't think he was a psycho but I do think he was very naive by doing things that he wasn't old enough to do legally.

I do think he made poor choices but I still think the three shootings were self-defence.

Agreed. I presume he was some form of libertarian or true believer in the US constitution. They have a propensity to do dumb stuff like this.

As regards crossing state lines and the weapon he didn't own, I presume he was brought there by a father or older brother. They might actually be in trouble for bringing him and/or giving him the rifle.

RasTa

He loses his self defence argument anyway considering he had an illegal firearm.

Cupatae

Feisar wrote: »

What the hell was he doing there in the first place? "Oh I'll pop down and offer my skillz as a medic. No the AR15 won't inflame anyone."

On the other hand who the hell tries to take on a lad with a rifle? And he was carrying it like he had training, muscle memory wound have ya dropped before he know what he was doing. Play stupid games win stupid prizes and all that.

He went down to defend property from looters and render help where he could and was set upon by the mob. His intentions good but naive

What were the protesters doing there in the first place is a better question! out to protest a man that deliberately did everything he could to get himself shot.The mob are so conditioned now by BLM its leading to there deaths because they believe they can tell everyone what to do and attack people/property at will

Exactly play stupid games win stupid prizes 4 men attacked a lad with a rifle they got shot, yet people are shocked lol

Darwin award for the guy they are protesting for.
Darwin award for the 4 lads chasing a dude that has a rifle.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

Here is the wisconsin legislation. Pray tell me where Rittenhouse's actions that night were justified.

Sand

RasTa wrote: »

He loses his self defence argument anyway considering he had an illegal firearm.

You can defend yourself with any weapon that comes to hand. He'll likely take a plea deal on the weapons charges, but his self defence argument is wholly separate.

RasTa

Sand wrote: »

You can defend yourself with any weapon that comes to hand. He'll likely take a plea deal on the weapons charges, but his self defence argument is wholly separate.

This didn't come to hand though. He was already a criminal walking around with it

Cupatae

Cupatae wrote: »

He went down to defend property from looters and render help where he could and was set upon by the mob.

What were the protesters doing there in the first place is a better question! out to protest a man that deliberately did everything he could to get himself shot.The mob are so conditioned now by BLM its leading to there deaths because they believe they can tell everyone what to do and attack people/property at will

Exactly play stupid games win stupid prizes 4 men attacked a lad with a rifle they got shot, yet people are shocked lol

Darwin award for the guy they are protesting for.
Darwin award for the 4 lads chasing a dude that has a rifle.

The lad is obviously a bit dim. He wanted to be a firefighter or something of that ilk. Not going to happen now. He's ruined his life and will be (justifably) locked up for a long time. He also murdered two father's, destroyed two families and permanently disfigured another person.

How people can justify this astounds me?

He is a murderer.

Cordell

Sand wrote: »

Trump is in power now and has done nothing to stop these riots and attacks. Even if re-elected, whats the reason to believe he would do anything then when hes doing nothing now?

It's very little he can really do short of sending the army or the national guard, and that probably will only make matters worse.

But the other side seems to support the BLM thugs, so this is why these riots will work for him. And maybe this is another reason he does nothing about them. Also, I'm quite sure that the shop owners would rather see racists ruling the country rather than having their shop destroyed and looted again - it's all good to be for social justice and all that until it's your life being destroyed by those you defend.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

You can defend yourself with any weapon that comes to hand. He'll likely take a plea deal on the weapons charges, but his self defence argument is wholly separate.

It didn't come to hand. He brought it illegally and purposefully across state lines. I wonder is he on suicide watch. I certainly would be contemplating if I had committed the heinous crimes he had.

Sand

RasTa wrote: »

This didn't come to hand though. He was already a criminal walking around with it

Doesn't matter for the self defence argument.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

It's very little he can really do short of sending the army or the national guard, and that probably will only make matters worse.

But the other side seems to support the BLM thugs, so this is why these riots will work for him. And maybe this is another reason he does nothing about them. Also, I'm quite sure that the shop owners would rather see racists ruling the country rather than having their shop destroyed and looted again - it's all good to be for social justice and all that until it's your life being destroyed by those you defend.

And here we are legitimising racism... Such "idealogues" on this thread.

Broadstone Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

Here is the wisconsin legislation. Pray tell me where Rittenhouse's actions that night were justified.

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

Here is an hour long video of an American lawyer explaining the Wisconsin legislation and coming to the conclusion that it was self defence.

Here is his updated opinion after more footage has come to light that Rittenhouse did not fire the first shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7SooO03bJ8

Gerry Hatrick

RasTa wrote: »

He loses his self defence argument anyway considering he had an illegal firearm.

Nope. Completely separate argument.

Foxtrol

Sand wrote: »

You can defend yourself with any weapon that comes to hand.

Not when you do any of doing so while committing a crime, use unnecessary force, or provoke the situation. The prosecution has many angles to go after him on for murder and that is before the recklessness charges.

He'll likely take a plea deal on the weapons charges, but his self defence argument is wholly separate.

You're pretty optimistic to think they'll plead this laundry list of new charges down to just a weapons

https://twitter.com/BenHandelman/status/1299112712279126016?s=20

Gerry Hatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

It didn't come to hand. He brought it illegally and purposefully across state lines. I wonder is he on suicide watch. I certainly would be contemplating if I had committed the heinous crimes he had.

He hasn't committed any crime except the firearm charge. He may do a few months at most but i highly doubt it.

The gun saved his life imo and he did well. I applaud his actions once he is in the situation.

Foxtrol

mynamejeff wrote: »

If they hadn't been out looting then they wouldn't have been shot

If jabob blake had stopped when he was told too he wouldn't have gotten shot

if George Floyd hadn't been for his tits on various drugs and resisting arrest he would be alive

if Rashard brooks hadn't decided to fight the police he would be alive

if mike brown hadn't been out committing crimes and fighting the police he would be alive

the overwhelming majority of these people are the author of their own demise

If the kid didn't break several laws trying to play Rambo even before shooting people then he wouldn't be facing a significant time in prison, where I'm sure other inmates will treat him very well.

Sand

Cordell wrote: »

It's very little he can really do short of sending the army or the national guard, and that probably will only make matters worse.

So why vote for him?

But the other side seems to support the BLM thugs,

Both sides support the BLM thugs. Every prosecutors office supports them. Every major corporation supports them. Every media outlet supports them. Every talking head and media personality supports them. Republican or Democrat makes no difference.

so this is why these riots will work for him. And maybe this is another reason he does nothing about them.

They'll only work to the extent that US mainstream politics entirely revolve around minor personality and style differences that are amped up by the media as being the critical issues of the day.

Gerry Hatrick

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

He hasn't committed any crime except the firearm charge. He may do a few months at most but i highly doubt it.

The gun saved his life imo and he did well. I applaud his actions once he is in the situation.

Him having a gun destroyed two families lives.

Sand

Foxtrol wrote: »

You're pretty optimistic to think they'll plead this laundry list of new charges down to just a weapons

I recall similar certainty around the shooting of Michael Brown. Everyone was absolutely certain Wilson had gunned down an innocent man as he ran away. But Wilson was fully exonerated.

Now I fully accept that because Rittenhouse is white, the prosecutors and politicians will do everything in their power to bury him. But when you review his actions, they have very little to work with beyond the weapons charges which he will almost certainly take a plea deal for.

Foxtrol

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.

You can't separate all the pieces though.

You can't act for the shootings that he didn't breaks laws to insert himself in a situation where people would likely get aggressive to him

You can't ignore that the people coming after him at the 2nd scene were chasing him because he murdered someone. Killers don't get immunity to kill people trying to stop them.

Retr0gamer

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't think he was a psycho but I do think he was very naive by doing things that he wasn't old enough to do legally.

I do think he made poor choices but I still think the three shootings were self-defence.

Self Defense my arse. He had a gun. The protester that approached him was concerned for his safety and the safety of the other protesters from a kid with a gun. Turns out unfortunately they had a legitimate reason for being concerned for their safety.

The mob didn't attack him. They were trying to disarm him.

It may be naivety on the part of the kid but he flat out murdered and injured innocent people.

Foxtrol

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

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.

How the hell is liquid accelerant inconsistent with a food truck? Generally food needs fire to cook

Frankie Machine

Deleted User wrote: »

And here we are legitimising racism... Such "idealogues" on this thread.

Ideologues.

I think the term justifiably applies to yourself, to be honest. You're not alone.