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

Cupatae

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/514045-gop-lawmaker-says-fatal-shooting-at-protest-in-wisconsin-100-justified-self

Looks like the kid is going to be backed and fair justice will be dealt out not BLM fanatics warped version of justice

BattleCorp

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

isn't that a bit racist ... the kind of sh#te your staying up on this thread for?

I'm being genuine here but how is that racist?

I'm on this thread because I am interested in the topic, not because I am racist.

Unless I am misguided and that saying that someone looks white is actually being racist.

Tipperary animal lover

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Others spat at and antagonised walking from the convention. Listen to venom in these people BLM supporters and the constant use homophobic slurs.

https://twitter.com/BrandonStraka/status/1299223473009631232

so foxtrol overheal and the rest ye think this acceptable? Yes what that young lad should've never been near kenosha he'll be dealt with either way, but your happy to support these BLM attacking and using words to bring down gay community, the same community that has stood with BLM through this sh#tstorm.... now i know your full of righteous s#it, ye can't be taken seriously..... your just as rabid as a lot of them protesters.

Manic Moran

It seems to me that everyone went looking for trouble, and it found them.

On the matter of the inconsistency of claiming immunity from the murder charge because of the illegality of carrying the rifle, I suspect that the charge is predicated mainly on his intent demonstrated by tooling up and driving to the trouble. Which, if so, is an interesting problem for various 'militias' which show up and are not from the local area. (Not that 30 minutes isn't the 'local area', mind. We're talking Midwest, not Ireland, 30 minutes is pretty local by US standards). I suspect any ruling will have to be rather finely crafted.

Having done something illegal isn't, in itself, a loss of the veil of righteousness, as it were. As I understand it, there has to be a proximal relationship: Person A burgles Person B's house. Person B defends his house. Person A kills person B in 'self defense' obviously isn't going to fly. But if Person B was a crack addict with a stash in the basement, yes, he's doing something illegal, and it may even be the reason why person A broke in, but Person B would not be guilty of murder for killing A in defending his home regardless. Or if he had half an ounce of meth in his pocket at the protest, does that remove his right to self defense? Arguably not.

There is another wrinkle in the argument which crops up in this local newspaper article.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/
Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old militia member who has been arrested and is facing a homicide charge in the matter, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had, according to statutes, which say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found the relevant statute to see the fine details. I presume he knows what he's talking about.

Saying that the victims were just being good citizens and attempting to disarm a minor misdemeanant seems to me to be about as realistic as saying that Rittenhouse was present with the primary purpose of providing medical aid. I strongly doubt they knew he was under 18. Had Rittenhouse been a few months older, I suspect that they would have acted in the same way, and ended up just as dead, except nobody would be arguing about the legalities of carrying a firearm. There was apparently some extremely poor decision-making on both sides.

Depends on the state. WI there's a good chance they don't have the right but I'm waiting to see what happens with the guy shot in the arm then.

Highly unlikely. The problem is that the state laws on the matter are subject to federal action. It's a prohibition in federal law as well. If the felon gets a pardon, restoration of full rights, or successfully applies to BATF that he is no longer a threat (Which hasn't happened since 1992, BATF no longer processes such applications), then the felon can have the right to a firearm if state law permits it. Such persons are rare.

Cupatae

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems to me that everyone went looking for trouble, and it found them.

On the matter of the inconsistency of claiming immunity from the murder charge because of the illegality of carrying the rifle, I suspect that the charge is predicated mainly on his intent demonstrated by tooling up and driving to the trouble. Which, if so, is an interesting problem for various 'militias' which show up and are not from the local area. (Not that 30 minutes isn't the 'local area', mind. We're talking Midwest, not Ireland, 30 minutes is pretty local by US standards). I suspect any ruling will have to be rather finely crafted.

Having done something illegal isn't, in itself, a loss of the veil of righteousness, as it were. As I understand it, there has to be a proximal relationship: Person A burgles Person B's house. Person B defends his house. Person A kills person B in 'self defense' obviously isn't going to fly. But if Person B was a crack addict with a stash in the basement, yes, he's doing something illegal, and it may even be the reason why person A broke in, but Person B would not be guilty of murder for killing A in defending his home regardless. Or if he had half an ounce of meth in his pocket at the protest, does that remove his right to self defense? Arguably not.

There is another wrinkle in the argument which crops up in this local newspaper article.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/
Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old militia member who has been arrested and is facing a homicide charge in the matter, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had, according to statutes, which say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found the relevant statute to see the fine details. I presume he knows what he's talking about.

Saying that the victims were just being good citizens and attempting to disarm a minor misdemeanant seems to me to be about as realistic as saying that Rittenhouse was present with the primary purpose of providing medical aid. I strongly doubt they knew he was under 18. Had Rittenhouse been a few months older, I suspect that they would have acted in the same way, and ended up just as dead, except nobody would be arguing about the legalities of carrying a firearm. There was apparently some extremely poor decision-making on both sides,

The real failure are those that allowed those riots, and those that incited them.. what do they think is going to happen when you aggressively go around attacking people and property.

They attacked an armed 17 yr old and got what they were asking for. It was an unprovoked attack.

Silentcorner

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Thankfully, you're not the judge of that.

Yet again, people's emotions getting in their way.

A huge part of this hysteria is just that...people succumbing to emotive arguments...on the night that man was shot by the police there were probably hundreds of incidents across the States where armed police officers had to draw their weapons on threatening individuals but it ended differently...one incident caught on camera, the circumstances of which were misrepresented by media outlets and/or social media and you end up with a city in flames.

This summer has seen this in cities across America...Portland, a city that hasn't even seen an incident like this has seen riots/protests for three months straight...which is going to have a huge impact on that cities ability to attract and retain businesses and employers.

The supporters of the Democratic Party are attempting to protest/riot/destroy property/destroy historical statues/destroy city neighbourhoods their way to victory in November....good luck with that!!!!

Overheal

Getting into more mental gymnastics and whataboutery talking about joints.

Bottom line is since he was already engaged in a gun related crime his self-defense privelege is likely null. Take this WI supreme court case, State v. Nollie, where the state affirmed, for example, the defendant did not have the privilege of self-defense because they unlawfully carried a concealed weapon.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinions/00/pdf/00-0744.pdf

biko

Overheal wrote: »

Mental gymnastics. He is 17 going on 18. He wasn’t holding mommy or daddy’s hand. He drove himself, armed himself, and inserted himself into the situation.

As long as he is not 18 he is a child.
There is no "17 and a half". Either you are classed a child or an adult.

However, there is provision to try a child as an adult. But even then he is still legally a child.

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

Please go find a post from me where I said anything about Blake's previous crimes. I was very specific and even said I wasn't taking Blake's previous crimes or alleged crimes into account. I said it was Blake's actions on the day of his shooting and not his past that led to him getting shot.

Please point to where you were correcting other posters when they labelled him as those things.

Ran into an area where there were cars somewhat blocking his route. His options were limited. He wasn't in the middle of a field. And he was being assaulted.

He wasn't cornered as the witness claimed. Video shows they were wrong.

I also don't see any evidence of him being assaulted in the first shooting. Being chased is not assault.

And as a previous poster pointed out, even if you lose the right to self-defence due to committing a crime, you can regain it by fleeing from the incident. And in both shootings, it's 10000000000% clear that Rittenhouse was fleeing the violence and only responded once he was attacked.

And yet even if you lose it, it can be regained as was pointed out earlier

I agree, that angle could potentially work for the first shooting but given that he had a gun and the other man was unarmed I'm not sure running away is enough. You also haven't dealt with reasonable force. Even then you haven't dealt with it being reasonable force for the threat either.

For the others, you can't deem citizens trying to stop a shooter as 'attacking' them. Again you have to deal with the reasonable force aspect of it.

And you can keep saying it all you like but I find it hard to believe that you can't defend yourself legally if you've committed a misdemeanour. Which at that stage is all that Rittenhouse had committed.

Again, if they make the first murder or any of the 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety charges stick then he has committed a felony.

Agreed, jurys don't always get it right. But they probably get it right far more than they get it wrong.

Nope, I reckon OJ did it.

And I reckon this guy did it even if he gets off on a technicality. Again, if it was a black guy at a right wing rally in the exact same circumstance he wouldn't stand a chance.

Tell me how

Evidence how police in Kenosha view black people.

https://twitter.com/soundmigration/status/1299263384471384065?s=09

That second video makes me think some day we are going to see a cop during trial say that his employer forced him to think a certain way.

Foxtrol

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Do you have any original thoughts, or is it all just frantic scrabbling to find superficial graphics that confirm your bias ?

The latter, I think.

Pretty sure that was the first graphic I posted.

I'm sorry if you don't like the photographic evidence that I'm posting that doesn't go along with your world view. Feel free to continue to whine.

Tipperary animal lover

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm being genuine here but how is that racist?

I'm on this thread because I am interested in the topic, not because I am racist.

Unless I am misguided and that saying that someone looks white is actually being racist.

I was been sarcastic lad, with the left everything is black or white , he looks white as hell to me but now a days you have to thread lightly incase you offend someone, ut the BLM crowd were happy to call him a white supremacist and the young lad is Hispanic but that won't wash well with them at all

Cupatae

biko wrote: »

As long as he is not 18 he is not an adult.
There is no "17 and a half". Either you are classed a child or an adult.

However, there is provision to try a child as an adult. But even then he is still legally a child.

100%

His a minor, and was attacked by 4 men, he had no choice but to fight for his life.. he will 100% walk from this and rightly so, you d have to be doing some crazy mental gymnastics to charge someone with murder off the back of a gun license.

100% wont happen tho common sense will prevail they wont give into this warped BLM version of justice too much evidence to support the childs self defense.

The real sick thing here is the BLM crew that are defending the 4 that attacked him, they wanted to see him beaten or worse, they maintain he shouldn't have defended himself. It shows the caliber of people you are dealing with when it comes to BLM

Overheal

biko wrote: »

As long as he is not 18 he is a child.
There is no "17 and a half". Either you are classed a child or an adult.

However, there is provision to try a child as an adult. But even then he is still legally a child.

He's been charged as an adult in Wisconsin.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-kenosha-police-shooting-charges-rittenhouse-20200827-7pty5kegyrgk7kaionxd2e2fmm-story.html

Rittenhouse was arrested as a fugitive Wednesday in Lake County. He is charged in Wisconsin as an adult. A judge ordered him held without bail at the Lake County juvenile detention facility. A court hearing is scheduled for Friday on whether to extradite him to Wisconsin.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/08/28/kenosha-kyle-rittenhouse-jacob-blake-protest-shooting/5653931002/

Rittenhouse, from Antioch, Illinois, is facing six charges in Wisconsin, the most serious of which is first-degree intentional homicide. Under Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse is charged as an adult, and he would face life in prison if convicted of the first-degree intentional homicide charge.

https://abc7chicago.com/antioch-teen-charged-with-murder-attempted-murder-in-kenosha-protest-shooting/6393073/

Rittenhouse was taken into custody Wednesday in Illinois. Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he is being held at a juvenile facility in Vernon Hills. Authorities plan to charge him as an adult and extradite him to Wisconsin.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/27/kyle-rittenhouse-charged-shooting-killing-jacob-blake-protesters/5651016002/

All of the felony charges carry a modifier of "use of a dangerous weapon," which can add more prison time upon a conviction. Rittenhouse also was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, a misdemeanor.

If convicted of the most serious charge, first-degree intentional homicide, he faces a mandatory life prison sentence. In Wisconsin, all 17-year-olds are automatically charged as adults.

Cupatae

Im actually in laughing at these ridiculous fire from the hip, MS Paint cartoons be handed up as proof here lmfao.

Cupatae

IF being the key word. IF he does.

Which he 100% wont id be surprised if he ever sees the inside of a cell don't mix up charges and convictions.

Foxtrol

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

so foxtrol overheal and the rest ye think this acceptable? Yes what that young lad should've never been near kenosha he'll be dealt with either way, but your happy to support these BLM attacking and using words to bring down gay community, the same community that has stood with BLM through this sh#tstorm.... now i know your full of righteous s#it, ye can't be taken seriously..... your just as rabid as a lot of them protesters.

Not at all acceptable but this is an obvious weak attempt at 'whataboutism' about mean words when we're talking about a wannbe soldier shooting 3 people with an illegal gun.

If you do some research you'll see there is a massive amount of collaboration betwen BLM groups and the gay community. I don't see any evidence of that from the sad Blue Lives/All Lives/White Lives matter supporters.

1800_Ladladlad

This clip of a police officer being violently assaulted by bLM protestors is being celebrated and hailed at the moment. Comparing the f*uckwit who threw the steel object (appears to be fitting from something), to Captain America. I dont know anything else about the police officer


https://twitter.com/PplsCityCouncil/status/1299232424698675200

Cupatae

Foxtrol wrote: »

Not at all acceptable but this is an obvious weak attempt at 'whataboutism' about mean words when we're talking about a wannbe soldier shooting 3 people with an illegal gun.

If you do some research you'll see there is a massive amount of collaboration betwen BLM groups and the gay community. I don't see any evidence of that from the sad Blue Lives/All Lives/White Lives matter supporters.

Bit like out of context MS Paint Doodles as "Proof lmfao :pac::pac:

Tell me how

Cupatae wrote: »

Im actually in laughing at these ridiculous fire from the hip, MS Paint cartoons be handed up as proof here lmfao.

Laughing while ignoring the words coming out of the mouth of the sheriff.

You want evidence of institutional racism? That's it right there.

As for the image, none of it is untrue, or even exagerrated. That is literally what happened.

Retr0gamer

kildare lad wrote: »

I wonder will LeBron and co be calling off games in protest of the 12 people shot in Chicago last night . Doubt it since black and black crime doesn't matter to them. There's been nearly 450 people been killed in Chicago this year alone, and not a word said about it from celebrities or BLM but when cop kill one in questionable circumstances all hell breaks loose.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-homicides-rose-by-139-percent-from-last-july-officials-say/2315318/

Homicides and shootings have surged in Chicago during the first seven months of the year.

From Jan. 1 through the end of July, there were 440 homicides in Chicago and 2,240 people shot, including many of those who were killed, according to statistics released Saturday by the police department.

There were 290 homicides and 1,480 shootings, including people who were killed, in the first seven months of last year.



https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/8/28/21405256/chicago-shootings-gun-violence-homicide-thursday-august-27-2020

Twelve people were shot, four of them fatally, across Chicago on Thursday.

The most recent killing happened just before midnight in Fernwood on the South Side.

A man, believed to be in his 40s, was found with a gunshot wound to his head in the 500 block of West 105th Street, Chicago police said. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Area Two detectives are questioning a person of interest.

Total whattaboutery and has nothing to do with what these protests are about.

Cupatae wrote: »

The real failure are those that allowed those riots, and those that incited them.. what do they think is going to happen when you aggressively go around attacking people and property.

They attacked an armed 17 yr old and got what they were asking for. It was an unprovoked attack.

People have a right to protest. It's the last resort of the desperate that haven't seen any change by going through other channels.

People who are acting out on their democratic right to protest don't deserve to die for it.

Tell me how

Cupatae wrote: »

Bit like out of context MS Paint Doodles as "Proof lmfao :pac::pac:

Itcouldnt be any more in context.

Your simple words on this evidence is very telling.

Cupatae

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

This clip of a police officer being violently assaulted by bLM protestors is being celebrated and hailed at the moment. Comparing the f*uckwit who threw the steel object (appears to be fitting from something), to Captain America. I dont know anything else about the police officer


https://twitter.com/PplsCityCouncil/status/1299232424698675200

Notice how the 3 blm defenders here Have no issue what so ever with this violence it honestly shows u the character of these people.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Laughing while ignoring the words coming out of the mouth of the sheriff.

You want evidence of institutional racism? That's it right there.

As for the image, none of it is untrue, or even exagerrated. That is literally what happened.

What race does he refer to there?

Tell me how

Cupatae wrote: »

Notice how the 3 blm defenders here Have no issue what so ever with this violence it honestly shows u the character of these people.

You can't deal with the evidence can you?

No words. Finally.

Cupatae

Tell me how wrote: »

Laughing while ignoring the words coming out of the mouth of the sheriff.

You want evidence of institutional racism? That's it right there.

As for the image, none of it is untrue, or even exaggerated. That is literally what happened.

An out of context snippet of a video with no reference as to why or what his talking about, followed with a MS Paint Scribble as proof will ya stop lad, your attempts are so weak they are laughable.

One mans words and you title it as "what people in kenosha think" weak and pathetic attempt at muddying the water and to spin a narrative of everyone being racist.


MS Paint doodles are now evidence folks! LMFAO!! i cant wait to see the courtcase wonder will they do it with MS paint lololol

Tipperary animal lover

Foxtrol wrote: »

Not at all acceptable but this is an obvious weak attempt at 'whataboutism' about mean words when we're talking about a wannbe soldier shooting 3 people with an illegal gun.

If you do some research you'll see there is a massive amount of collaboration betwen BLM groups and the gay community. I don't see any evidence of that from the sad Blue Lives/All Lives/White Lives matter supporters.

Whataboutism where talking about blm or wlm its in the thread title,this isn't the first attack I've seen online against the gay community.... look at the trans woman who was mugged and beaten up by BLM in portland .... when the BLM crowd get riled up the through colours come out, attack the weakest link seems to be the form for them in every video you see online

hynesie08

Cupatae wrote: »

Notice how the 3 blm defenders here Have no issue what so ever with this violence it honestly shows u the character of these people.

The cop might have been reaching into his car for a knife........ If he'd just complied he'd be standing.......... He might have previous convictions or a joint in his pocket.....

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What race does he refer to there?

Yeah, keep with the line, 'he didnt use the N word, he definitely isn't a racist'.

It us good for everyone to see how weak that defense is.

This guy was exhibiting extremely prejudicial views on a sector of the society which he was hired to protect.

Some idiot to say what he said so blatantly.

Cupatae

hynesie08 wrote: »

The cop might have been reaching into his car for a knife........ If he'd just complied he'd be standing.......... He might have previous convictions or a joint in his pocket.....

Have you any proof of that? any MS paint drawings? :pac::pac: