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

Overheal

statesaver wrote: »

Is speech not violence anymore, I thought you lads endorsed that nonsense,
speech is violence, silence is violence.

I'm not sure what quote you are attributing to me but I never said it, and I imagine wherever you are plucking it from is out of context.

The metal gymnastics people like yourself have to do must be exhausting, it's surprizing you have the energy to post here 24/7. :rolleyes:

"people like you" bla bla bla. Do you have evidence I post here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Not only an impractically ridiculous assertion, but an incorrect one and an ad hominem attack in place of any cogent argument related to the topic.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Just because people have different views doesn't mean that they should be outraged.

That's the problem with the internet nowadays. Disagree with someone and they become outraged.

It's a difference of opinion, that's all.

In fairness, the poster seems pretty outraged, going as far as making the ridiculous statement that it counts as hate speech.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

"people like you" bla bla bla. Do you have evidence I post here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Not only an impractically ridiculous assertion, but an incorrect one and an ad hominem attack in place of any cogent argument related to the topic.

you demand a lot of evidence for some one so slow to produce some yourself ….

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

Self defense while committing a crime is not legally privileged self defense.

You keep saying that, but its not true. Self defence claims may be affected in some circumstances, but they are not entirely removed and can be fully regained.

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

you demand a lot of evidence for some one so slow to produce some yourself ….

As I said I already produced it. So in fact I produced it quick - so quick it was produced before you asked. Read the thread.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, the poster seems pretty outraged, going as far as making the ridiculous statement that it counts as hate speech.

You and your posse seem to have a habit of trying to put words in other peoples mouths .

Outraged ,lol,no I'm not, I'm fairly laid back unlike you and a few others whose posting history seems to be a continuous never ending attack on Trump .

ThunbergsAreGo

If America is anything like this thread I fear for it.

At least the thread can be locked............

suicide_circus

Black Americans are but leaves blowing in the winds of circumstance, devoid of agency and self determination.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

You keep saying that, but its not true. Self defence claims may be affected in some circumstances, but they are not entirely removed and can be fully regained.

And one way they can be "affected" is in their complete nullification because you are engaged in criminal activity :rolleyes:

Overheal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

You and your posse seem to have a habit of trying to put words in other peoples mouths .

Outraged ,lol,no I'm not, unlike you and a few others whose posting history seems to be a continuous never ending attack on Trump .

You literally just put words in several peoples mouths just now, to lament people putting words in peoples mouths. Nice.

iebamm2580

statesaver wrote: »

Absolute state of this fcuking moron. These people cannot be allowed to win. They do not believe in peoples right of freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom really.

https://twitter.com/nieto_phillip/status/1299207662043828224

Don't believe in democracy.

admire his composure, i would admire a lot more if people on the left came out and admonished such animal behavior.

Overheal

iebamm2580 wrote: »

admire his composure, i would admire a lot more if people on the left came out and admonished such animal behavior.

Nice attempt at dehumanization

Charles Babbage

markodaly wrote: »

A caste system where blacks sit at the bottom, yet not 4 years ago there was a black president and all likelihood there will be a black female VP come Novemeber

Does.not.compute.

Perhaps it is more subtle than that since neither the President nor the prospective VP are traditional black people.

Overheal

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Perhaps it is more subtle than that

What? Reality, nuanced? HAHAHA Come off it

Foxtrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

Consistency would be helpful but appreciate the honesty.

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

Then why do people that support your perspective keep bring up his past and why do you not call them out on it?

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

Then why do people that support your perspective keep bring up his past and why do you not call them out on it?

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

Can't see anything in Wiconsin law that states that. Happy to be corrected but everything I see is actual physical harm.

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.

An eye witness posted in an earlier article stated that Rittenhouse approached someone that was damaging something and that is what kicked everything off. If so it could be the first victim that was using self defense by chasing him away (even if that is an incredibly stupid thing to do).

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.

By his actions going to the event armed and per that witness by approaching someone he was the instigator and put himself under threat.

He has to prove that he felt that he was under 'imminent death or great bodily harm'. The first guy was unarmed and was shot 3 times. I don't see that as being 'reasonable force' when you chose to break laws to go into a violent situation

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.

Not if he was guilty of recklessness prior to it.

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, I ask by your logic are you then saying that anyone can commit what appear to be crimes and if any member of public tries to stop them the person has open season to kill them?

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.

I think there is a problem with any justice system where a person can bring an illegal weapon and purposefully insert themselves into a violent situation and then get off by claiming 'self defense'. I'd say the same thing if a black 17 year old did it at a proud boys rally.

It is utter nonsense, just like Florida stand your ground laws that allowed Zimmerman walk free after murdering Trayvon Martin, when against police commands decided to be a vigilante and attack him for the crime of being black and wearing a hoodie.

iebamm2580

Overheal wrote: »

Nice attempt at dehumanization

act like an animal get treated as such, i dont care for your opinion.

Overheal

I think there is a problem with any justice system where a person can bring an illegal weapon and purposefully insert themselves into a violent situation and then get off by claiming 'self defense'. I'd say the same thing if a black 17 year old did it at a proud boys rally.

Let's also remember what happened to the man who killed Heather Heyer and claimed self defense, when he brought his car to Charlottesville and used it to mow through dozens of human beings.

ThunbergsAreGo

Overheal wrote: »

Nice attempt at dehumanization

What is your opinion on harassing people and shouting in their faces?

Overheal

iebamm2580 wrote: »

act like an animal get treated as such

How are they acting like animals? They are on 2 legs, fully clothed, sentient, protesting a political issue. What animals do that?

Gerry Hatrick

statesaver wrote: »

Absolute state of this fcuking moron. These people cannot be allowed to win. They do not believe in peoples right of freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom really.

https://twitter.com/nieto_phillip/status/1299207662043828224

Don't believe in democracy.

These idiots put a guillotine in front of the white House last night. They have completely lost the plot.

Overheal

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

What is your opinion on harassing people and shouting in their faces?

That it's not very nice but it's also speech. The people in the video still had their freedom of movement and it was a public sidewalk.

iebamm2580

Overheal wrote: »

How are they acting like animals? They are on 2 legs, fully clothed, sentient, protesting a political issue. What animals do that?

Its ok a person like you wouldn't understand.

Cupatae

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, the poster seems pretty outraged, going as far as making the ridiculous statement that it counts as hate speech.

Honestly your just really selective with your truth and the context you qoute law, similar posting tactics and the other BLM defenders,

Ye have a "ahh its understandable " attitude towards all crimes provoked and committed by BLM and then a "burn em at the stake !" Attitude for anyone that speaks out against em or fights back in anyway shape or form even when they are being attacked.

It makes for tedious debates when people are so heavily biased towards BLM , even when they are blatantly in the wrong.

ThunbergsAreGo

Overheal wrote: »

That it's not very nice but it's also speech. The people in the video still had their freedom of movement and it was a public sidewalk.

He handled it very well alright. Didn't realise he had prosthetic legs as well - he was suggesting they saw him as an easy target. Not sure what the picture is about.

Not a fan of intimidation myself no matter who is doing it.

On a side note, the stuff linked on his Twitter page to what Pam Keith is saying is..... wow! So so divise

Gerry Hatrick

I can only imagine the meltdown from the left when Trump wins in November. Won't be pretty.

Overheal

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Its ok a person like you wouldn't understand.

Why? Am I an animal too? Why are we trying to make this personal? Are you unable to stand by your own argument? It's okay if you wish to retract. They are human beings, engaged in political activism. They are not animals, and calling them animals is an effort to dehumanize them and justify treating them as subhuman.

Cupatae

Overheal wrote: »

How are they acting like animals? They are on 2 legs, fully clothed, sentient, protesting a political issue. What animals do that?

Hate speeches against white people random attacks on police and white people burning robbing and looting stores , targeting homes of people .. they are animals

Twisting and manipulation of the truth in order to further gains even if it leads to deaths and injury for the people they incite to riots , no regard for the pandemic currently happening .

Overheal

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

He handled it very well alright. Didn't realise he had prosthetic legs as well - he was suggesting they saw him as an easy target.

If you didn't realize it how did they?

Not sure what the picture is about.

It's protesters shouting and screaming within inches of law enforcement officers. They were not arrested. Shouting and screaming at people is still speech.

iebamm2580

Overheal wrote: »

Why? Am I an animal too? Why are we trying to make this personal? Are you unable to stand by your own argument? It's okay if you wish to retract. They are human beings, engaged in political activism. They are not animals, and calling them animals is an effort to dehumanize them and justify treating them as subhuman.

Dont worry your little head, no i will not retract anything. BTW where did i call them animals?

Foxtrol

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

These idiots put a guillotine in front of the white House last night. They have completely lost the plot.

And right wing protesters hung an effigy or the Michigan Governor a few weeks ago because she asked them to wear a mask.

There is nonsense on both sides