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

Tell me how

Cupatae wrote: »

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

Truth hurts kiddo. There is no excusing a defender of the peace holding those views.

And your abhorrence at the style of the graphic isn't surprising. The literal real life images and videos didn't mean anything to you either.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

You posted it as an example of racist speech yes? From that clip, he specifically states he isn't referring to any one group of people. So, again, what race is he referring to?

It seems to me that you are assuming a connection between his speech and a particular community, a rather prejudiced view.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

Good read. It is a complete mess that all parties brought on themselves (though in another situation the 2nd and 3rd victims would be called heroes). Lawyers will be able to attack this from so many directions.

Just going to quote specific elements of it.

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.

Agree with this. The other angle where I think they might be able to get him is if they can get a guilty verdict on the first murder or any of the wreckless charges.

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.

Seems like a big stretch, which isn't too surprising for a gun rights lawyer. If there is any note for hunting in the legislation, the lad admitted to camera that he wasn't there for hunting. Also, even if a broad ownership and use is allowed for that age group, surely that wouldn't extend to open carry.

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.

Yeah, there is no way they'll go down that route. Another route they propose is that the first victim was acting in self defense by chasing Rittenhouse if they have any witnesses that he did anything mildly aggressive or issued a threat to the victim (which it claims in the article you linked that they do).

Frankie Machine

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

You were the one whining that you've worked in hospitals all your life and never saw a medic with a weapon, when the photo evidence for that was already in this thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114451798&postcount=2632

Too busy reacting to people you disagree with, for the basic courtesy of actually reading the thread.

So yeah, your world view.

*Suited your narrative to edit the post of course, replacing 'weapon' with 'AR15'. No such thing as too much hysteria, after all.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

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

Nope, doesn't apply. That wasn't a case of a self defense claim not applying because of carrying an illegal weapon, that was a case of a charge of carrying an illegal weapon being upheld because there was no valid self defense claim.

Basically, he was carrying 'just in case' and charged for carrying. From the opinion:

"An actor's conduct, although otherwise criminal, is legally justified when it occurs under one of several circumstances recognized by statute. If the actor's conduct occurs under circumstances of coercion or necessity, the conduct is privileged. Wis. Stat. §§ 939.45(1), 939.46, 939.47. Likewise, an act is privileged if it is done in defense of persons or property." (My italics).

The 9th Circuit similarly had a look at it in a case a couple years ago, I can't recall the citation right now. Basically CA law can result in situations where normal folks can't carry a gun. The 9th Circuit observed that they still had the right to use a gun, but where the gun came from was "left open to providence". In other words, he -may- not have a gun, but if he -does- have a gun regardless of permission, he can use it.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You posted it as an example of racist speech yes? From that clip, he specifically states he isn't referring to any one group of people. So, again, what race is he referring to?

It seems to me that you are assuming a connection between his speech and a particular community, a rather prejudiced view.

Tell me which group of a community it is acceptable to speak about in this way.

There isn't one. That sheriff has prejudicial views and it's like he either wants/expects his deputies to think the same way. And if they dont when they come in the door, I bet they do before long. Institutional Racism 101

Totally unacceptable.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

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

I don't think I did correct anybody to be honest. I'm not really interested in people's legal past as I don't think it is really relevant to the shootings. I'm more interested in the actions that led to the shootings.

In other words I don't believe Blake was shot because of his past, but because he resisted arrest.

I don't believe any of the guys that Rittenhouse shot were shot because of their past, but because they attacked him.

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.

I have to strongly disagree with you here. Being chased in those circumstances is assault, as is throwing stuff at him.

There was a group of people chasing Rittenhouse immediately prior to the first shooting. There was an immediate threat to Rittenhouse's safety. He responded in kind.

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.

He was being chased, had stuff thrown at him and someone tried to grab his gun. He was under threat. He shot the person attacking him. I would consider his response reasonable. What wouldn't be reasonable would be if he shot several other people who were further away from him. But that didn't happen.

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.

If the first shooting was justified, then so would the second and third. A lot will depend on how the courts view the first shooting.

If I was pushed and knocked on the ground, had someone try kick and jump on me and hit me with a skateboard, I would certainly consider it reasonable force to shoot whoever was attacking me.

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.

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.

There's no denying that he did it. He did shoot those people. The only argument is if it's murder or self-defence.

It's interesting to note that you won't accept it was self-defence under any circumstances. Even if that is what the courts decide. Ok.

Overheal

Tell me how wrote: »

Tell me which group of a community it is acceptable to speak about in this way.

Presumably the one that 'gets a bunch of women pregnant' etc.

kildare lad

Retr0gamer wrote: »

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



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.

Total whataboutery ??? There's thousands of blacks getting murdered every year by other black and not a peep out of BLM . A handful of unarmed blacks are killed by the cops every year and there's non stop protests and rioting . If they put as much effort into cleaning up their own communities as they did as rioting and protesting then maybe there'd be less black people dying .

Foxtrol

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

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

It is pure whataboutism. We're in the middle of a discussion about a wannabe soldier that shot 3 people, killing 2, and you're moaning about some mean words.

Here is an article on just some of the pro trans protests organized by BLM movement groups. Please connect me to similar support shown by Blue/All/White Lives or even any right wing groups.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/black-trans-protests/index.html

BattleCorp

Cupatae wrote: »

100%
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.

I don't think he will walk away scott free. He will do some time for the gun violations but I'd be very surprised if he's convicted of murder. Granted, Rittenhouse was very naive to put himself in that position but it looks very much like self-defence to me.

Interestingly Manic Moran said there may be legislation allowing underage people to carry a rifle or shotgun. If that can be unearthed, then that might remove one of the gun charges against Rittenhouse.

Foxtrol

Frankie Machine wrote: »

You were the one whining that you've worked in hospitals all your life and never saw a medic with a weapon, when the photo evidence for that was already in this thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114451798&postcount=2632

Too busy reacting to people you disagree with, for the basic courtesy of actually reading the thread.

So yeah, your world view.

*Suited your narrative to edit the post of course, replacing 'weapon' with 'AR15'. No such thing as too much hysteria, after all.

Are you slow or 'too busy reacting to people you disagree with, for the basic courtesy of actually reading'

You just linked a poster that isn't me... :rolleyes:

This is what you linked

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Sand

Tell me how wrote: »

Tell me which group of a community it is acceptable to speak about in this way.

Criminals?

iebamm2580

To be honest it looks like white liberals that are causing alot of the problems at these protests, trying to force their views onto people. Actually ruining it for black people who have reasons to be angry about certain situations.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Tell me which group of a community it is acceptable to speak about in this way.

There isn't one. That sheriff has prejudicial views and it's like he either wants/expects his deputies to think the same way. And if they dont when they come in the door, I bet they do before long. Institutional Racism 101

Totally unacceptable.

His statement is certainly unacceptable, but I fail to see the racial aspect. Why are trying to paint it as so?

Overheal

March on Washington for racial justice and police reform happening now

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/march-on-washington-dc-mlk-racial-equality-watch-live-stream-today-2020-08-28/

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

Ex convicted felons it looks like. Unless they broke out of prison the other night all, they were free men who paid their debts to society.

You are so understanding of pedophiles and forgiving , but want a 17 yr old nailed to the cross for not having a carry permit infact you are desperately trying to link that as confirmation of murder..

The double standards from you and the others that share your views are both laughable and slightly scary. God help us all if people with your views get an ounce of power anyway .

Cupatae

iebamm2580 wrote: »

To be honest it looks like white liberals that are causing alot of the problems at these protests, trying to force their views onto people. Actually ruining it for black people who have reasons to be angry about certain situations.

The pesky white man at it again.

Overheal

Cupatae wrote: »

You are so understanding of pedophiles and forgiving , but want a 17 yr old nailed to the cross for not having a carry permit infact you are desperately trying to link that as confirmation of murder..

The former paid their debt to society, the latter has been freshly charged with crimes that will be prosecuted and tried.

The metaphors don't buttress your case. I never said anything about nailing him to anything.

iebamm2580

Cupatae wrote: »

The pesky white man at it again.

you have me wrong man, im not pro blm but just seems that white liberals are more enraged than black folk.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

The former paid their debt to society, the latter has been freshly charged with crimes that will be prosecuted and tried.

The metaphors don't buttress your case. I never said anything about nailing him to anything.

They also assaulted the 17yr old with deadly weapons

Cupatae

Tell me how wrote: »

Truth hurts kiddo. There is no excusing a defender of the peace holding those views.

And your abhorrence at the style of the graphic isn't surprising. The literal real life images and videos didn't mean anything to you either.

The truth means nothing to you and your lot, you only want your own version of the truth but that's no how it works unfortunately.

You can post your little ms paint doodles as proof till your blue in the face it won't change the facts lmao you are fooling no one only making a show of yourself with such ridiculousness , I get a good laugh out of ur proof anyway ha

MS paint as proof now that's where we're at good God lmao.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They also assaulted the 17yr old with deadly weapons

That's a matter for the courts. They are dead though so won't be on trial.

ThunbergsAreGo

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

Any confirmation as to what he is referring to with "these people"?

Retr0gamer

Cupatae wrote: »

You are so understanding of pedophiles and forgiving , but want a 17 yr old nailed to the cross for not having a carry permit infact you are desperately trying to link that as confirmation of murder..

The double standards from you and the others that share your views are both laughable and slightly scary. God help us all if people with your views get an ounce of power anyway .

Vigilantism is a crime as well. Lots of hypocrisy here with people saying the shooter is innocent until proven guilty but it's ok to gun down people because they are convicted criminals.

Cupatae

https://www.insider.com/police-used-taser-grappled-jacob-blake-before-shooting-witnesses-2020-8

The truth is emerging , police grappled and tried to use tazers before shooting the martry Jacob Blake

BLM left with egg on there face once more

Retr0gamer

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They also assaulted the 17yr old with deadly weapons

Who had just killed someone in cold blood. Let's let the courts decide but only one person pulled the trigger multiple times that night and killed people.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

That's a matter for the courts. They are dead though so won't be on trial.

Thankfully we have the video showing the facts, much to the chagrin of those looking to spin narratives

Cupatae

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Vigilantism is a crime as well. Lots of hypocrisy here with people saying the shooter is innocent until proven guilty but it's ok to gun down people because they are convicted criminals.

Is it ok for 4 men to attack him then with guns?

Oh there's an outrageous amount of hypocrisy here and most of it from BLM defenders.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

His statement is certainly unacceptable, but I fail to see the racial aspect. Why are trying to paint it as so?

Lol.

I think you mean choose not to see instead of fail to see but you carry on.

You might get away with pleading ignorance if we were discussing this video last week before everything happened in the public eye as it did.