Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 03:39:40 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Rittenhouse VI
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 03:36:08
Kargen
You keep on gettin sucked into the narrative Rittenhouse's lawyers and the judge spun.

Here is what a self-defense claim basis would have been:

"Teenager (17) kills man. Is shot dead by bystander"

Interesting only from a Guess the Race perspective.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 03:41:28
As to civic suits versus Rittenhouse. Well, that rather depends on how successful crowdfunding, movie and book deals turn out to be I wager.

We will see.
kargen
Member
Sun Nov 21 03:56:27
You are wrong.

Two blocks away. Running from the people that attacked him. Yelled friendly friendly friendly and I'm going to the police while heading towards the police and away from the crowd gun pointed down finger off trigger. Only pointed the gun at people that first attacked him.

I don't need the defense lawyers I have two eyes and two ears all connected to my brain. Not sure what is going on with you.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 04:12:16
The jury spent 4 days deliberating on cherrypicked evidence that would have been very different if a bystander had killed an armed teenager that had just shot a man.

I am think you too would have guessed "black" when we had our thread on topic.

Later, we would have seen evidence on his looking for trouble on social media and real life comments, the illegality of him having a gun at all, and of course punching girls. He would not have been the defendant, so all kinds of evidence could have been brought in.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 04:14:45
It is very clear from the evidence that the crowd thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

That is ultimately all it takes for self-defense.

You are really having trouble wrapping your mind around the fact that the self-defense of one does not negate the self-defense of others.
patom
Member
Sun Nov 21 04:27:08
I do have a feeling that Rittenhouse will be another
George Zimmerman. He's now felt the rush of killing and getting away with it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Nov 21 06:45:53
Jergul

"You are really having trouble wrapping your mind around the fact that the self-defense of one does not negate the self-defense of others."

The fact that some people in the rioting crowd "thought" something, does not mean that what they thought was correct and certainly not that Rittenhouse' response to their thoughts put into action was illegal.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Nov 21 06:50:48
You can legally get killed in an act of self-defense for doing things you thought were the correct thing to do at the time based on incomplete or distorted information. Tragic, but the capitulation of civil society in the face of disorder is a sure way to create chaotic situations where such things will happen.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Nov 21 07:12:53
Previous Threads:
• (1) http://uto...hread=88831&time=1636585583994
• (2) http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88836&time=1636815899274
• (3) http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88846&time=1637162838457
• (4) http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88855&time=1637297874765
• (5) http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88862&time=1637467171952

..
[Cherub Cow]: "One might have to wonder, if Rittenhouse had also hit the person who tried to death-stomp him in the head (that person has remained anonymous), would that person also have a criminal record?
I'd bet on it."

That was an easy bet with myself.

"Jump-Kick Man" was identified as one Maurice Freeland, a convicted felon with 25 charges on his record (including criminal violence, felony car-theft, and drugs) who, on the night in question, was out on bond after beating his girlfriend, Monalisa McDuffie. He punched McDuffie in the chest three times, threw her to the floor, kicked her in the ribs, and threatened to kill her when she ran away ("You better run, bitch. I'll kill you!").

He asked for immunity on his current charges in exchange for his testimony, but the prosecution declined. He likely was not going to provide anything good for the prosecution, and any testimony would be unreliable.

..
[patom]: "I do have a feeling that Rittenhouse will be another
George Zimmerman. He's now felt the rush of killing and getting away with it."

True, that's why Zimmerman has killed 50 black teenagers to date, and no one dares stop him. He got the taste of black-teenager blood, and now he can't stop.

Wait. Zimmerman hasn't killed anyone except one 5'11" teenager who rained blows upon him from the mount position, causing Zimmerman's head to hit the concrete below him, almost rendering Zimmerman unconscious. And Zimmerman has done some great work since then, like trying to sue Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren for defamation (e.g., calling Zimmerman a "white supremacist"). So, in that respect, I hope we *do* have another Zimmerman: someone who is ready to sue the propagandists.

..
[murder]: "This kid crossed state lines and roamed the streets looking for people to confront with his rifle."

False.
All evidence suggests that he was walking around asking people if they needed aid and rendering aid in at least two cases. He was also seen putting out fires.

[murder]: "Every other single soul made it back home without shooting anyone"

Not for a lack of trying.
And no one else with a rifle was attacked in that manner, though Rosenbaum came *very* close to attacking other armed persons in several occasions in the minutes before he attacked Rittenhouse.

[murder]: "In any rational system, they would lock him up. But we won't. Or should I say Wisconsin won't."

It is rational in a free society for a person's right to self-defense to be preserved.

[murder]: "Claiming that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense is as nonsensical as saying that the people he was defending himself from were acting in self defense."

False.
This is contrary to how self-defense is handled in a free society. If someone initiates violence against you, you may have the right to self-defense. The initiator does not reclaim a right to self-defense while still attacking you.

[murder]: "Some people went out looking for trouble. A few found trouble. One of them was willing to fire his weapon repeatedly at people."

False.
There is no evidence that Rittenhouse "went out looking for trouble".

[murder]: "He's going to get off."

Good call! Justice was served \:D/

[murder]: "btw I feel compelled to point out that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include a right to fire them at people."

False.
The Second Amendment does not contain any kind of exclusion whereby the right to keep and bear arms excludes the ability to fire those arms. That is absurd on its face and contrary to the supporting documents of the Second Amendment. No reasonable person would believe that the Second Amendment meant, "The right to keep and bear arms [but only for display purposes]." That's even more absurd than the argument that firearms can only be used for hunting or that the founders only wanted people to use single-shot muskets.

[murder]: "Of course people should be able to ambush open carriers ... Not only do I think so, but so does the law. You just have to claim to be in fear for your life"

False.
It is not just whether you claim being in fear for your life; your fear must be reasonable to a jury and backed by law. If you are on video standing confidently with no cause for concern but you shoot an unarmed person 50 feet away who takes a step towards you, no reasonable person would agree that that is self-defense, even if you claimed to be afraid.

[murder]: "and living in the US with all the mass shooting events we have, who wouldn't be justifiably in fear of someone flaunting a firearm?"

People who are not weak-willed commies, for one example.
People who can read context, for another.

[murder]: "Rittenhouse can confront someone with a deadly weapon, but Rittenhouse confronted with a deadly weapon becomes a valid excuse for self-defense."

Rittenhouse and free citizens are indeed allowed to confront arsonists and rioters and to put out their fires with fire extinguishers. If those arsonists pursue free citizens to create yet more illegal violence upon them, then a free citizen is indeed allowed to defend himself within limited and reasonable scenarios. The arsonists and rioters who pursued Rittenhouse, on the other hand, failed to create a self-defense scenario for themselves at the crucial moments. Grosskreutz re-gained self-defense momentarily by raising his hands, Rittenhouse re-assessed him as a non-threat and lowered his weapon, but Grosskreutz re-engaged, surrendering his self-defense option.

[murder]: "I wonder what the law would say about 5 guys with boxcutters deputizing themselves air marshals and commandeering a passenger jet."

Bad take.
It is illegal to hijack a plane.
It is not illegal to protect one's body from illegal assailants.

[murder]: "That's exactly what a terrorist would say to get your guard down."

That trick only works once, and use of that trick is prevented with proper use of "Run, hide, fight."

[murder]: "You mean shoot the guy with the illegal rifle"

False.
The rifle was not illegal.

[murder]: "You don't carry a rifle around for "self-defense" Rifles are for shooting at a distance."

False.
The effective range of Rittenhouse's Smith & Wesson MP-15 includes point-target lethality at distances from 500 meters all the way down to zero meters. Any firearm provides a defensive utility as a deterrent when made visible, and when a firearm must be used, it is functional within its respective Minutes of Angle beyond its barrel (i.e., zero meters is an appropriate defensive use). If a person needs additional defense between the rifle barrel and the body, they may elect to have an additional sidearm. Like was pointed out, Rittenhouse was not allowed to carry a handgun, but he was nevertheless able to use his rifle effectively at short range, making a great use-case for its close-range defensive advantages.

[murder]: "Rittenhouse brought a rifle to the party to (at best) confront and intimidate people that he had no reason to have any contact with at all."

False.
No evidence has been put forth that Rittenhouse brought the rifle to "confront and intimidate people". Eligible citizens are allowed to carry rifles for protection without the law automatically assuming that their state of mind is malicious. Also, a law-abiding citizen has good reason to interact with lawless rioters.

..
[jergul]: "It is very clear from the evidence that the crowd thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter."

Absolutely and categorically FALSE.
The evidence did NOT say that that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. The prosecution's own witnesses did not even speak to that. On the stand being questioned by the prosecution, Grosskreutz NEVER ONCE said that he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter, and in NO STATEMENT with police did he say that he thought that.

..
[jergul]: "I think the US system is turning into one where any active shooter should not be approached, but rather put down at a distance."
[jergul]: "The guy with the gun could and should have shoot him. The guy with the skateboard should have openly carried a gun to defend against possible active shooters."
[jergul]: "He had a gun in a crowd and had just shot someone.
Active shooter from any reasonable point of view."

Again, no one should take jergul's advice as actual legal advice. Employing his strategy and perceptions would result in consecutive life sentences for murder. Commie half-wits might well try his delusional strategy, but they will go to jail.

It is not legal to kill someone who is open-carrying just because of some abstracted opportunism. On-the-ground context must actually support an "active shooter" perception by a jury of reasonable persons who have been instructed on the actual laws. It is not enough to justify "active shooter" via the desperate wishes of corporate/Politburo propaganda written after-the-fact to trick a free society into disarming itself.

[jergul]: "The self-defense of one does not impact on the self-defense of others."

False.
If someone is attacked, that person may have a right to self-defense, but the attacker — if their initial attack is seen as illegal — does not have a right to self-defense unless additional conditions can be met, such as withdrawing from the fight and re-claiming a defensive posture (which itself has additional legal qualifications).

[jergul]: "It factually is true that the threat a weapon carried is to your depends entirely on the carrier's state of mind."

Not entirely. It would also matter if it looks loaded, operational, well-maintained, or pointed in a safe direction. And it's a good thing that Rittenhouse's state of mind was so explicit to reasonable persons. His state of mind was clearly to defend himself rightly and turn himself into police, with it being *un*-reasonable for persons to attack him while he ran in the direction of nearby police lights.

[jergul]: "How far does your trust in humanity go? How far does it go if the carrier just shot someone?"

I trust my need for freedom more than I trust a tyrant's want for control through forced security. I also trust my evaluation of shoot scenarios since I was not trained by pinko cowards.

[jergul]: "I understand firearms perfectly well."

(This claim is disputed.)

[jergul]: "I don't understand the gun cult you guys have with all its relitious rituals."

Just watch the Zardoz trailer, and you'll get it. ;)

The nihilists want to overthrow the world with mediocrity.
Zardoz makes the Over-Man!
The Over-Man wields the GUN.
The Over-Man at last grants the nihilists death — their salvation!
ZARDOZ!

[jergul]: "I do however know you are allowed to kill active shooters."

*If* they are indeed "active shooters", and then only *if* they are still active.
In reality, even legitimate active shooters stop shooting and turn themselves into the police. No commie mob gets to interrupt that process with vigilantism.

[jergul]: "The US legal system is of course a joke. But we all know that anyway."

So sayeth the weak, who crave the death that America can grant them.
If only they had more oil to justify a visit! Alas, others have more.
Zardoz!

[jergul]: "Anyone taking down an active shooter can reasonably believe there was a huge danger unless he is drops his weapon, raises his hands, and tries to surrender."

"Tries to surrender" to whom? The mob? Bad idea. That's death.
"Drops his weapon" for whom? The mob? Bad idea. That's death.
"Raises his hands" for whom? The mob? Bad idea. That's death.

Incidentally, Rittenhouse surrendered to, dropped his weapon for, and raised his hands for the police — the only right authority in that situation. The mob has no authority.

[jergul]: "Has he been charge with assault or attempted homicide on Rittenhouse? Why not?"

Grosskreutz *could* be charged with the attempted murder of Rittenhouse (or **could have been**, since that bell has likely been rung), but he likely will not be because Grosskreutz made a deal with the prosecution for certain protections in exchange for his testimony. Already, six days before the trial, the prosecution dropped a DUI charge that Grosskreutz was facing in order to improve his standing as their witness. Grosskreutz was willing to admit pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse (not worrying about Fifth Amendment concerns) likely because the prosecution gave him a good deal.

[jergul]: "Do you really want a system where you throw people into jail for confronting active shooters?"

Nope. And luckily, this case did not in any way provide any legal precedent for that delusion-induced pitfall. It will be very entertaining for commies to try that "active shooter" narrative and then complain about the results in nice letters written in pencil from prison.

[jergul]: "I think we have all be clear that the argument is for after shots have been fired."

Which shots?
The shot by Joshua Ziminski that was fired before Rittenhouse was lunged at by Rosenbaum?
The shots by unknown persons immediately after Rittenhouse defended himself?
The shots by unknown persons while Rittenhouse ran down the street towards police?

At any rate, firing a weapon does not make a person an active shooter. The symptoms of an active shooter include things such as..
• indiscriminate and opportunistic killing,
• complete disregard for any and all lives,
• a direct targeting of anyone who is in rifle distance regardless of whether or not anyone constitutes a threat,
• an avoidance of detainment by police to increase a kill count,

People who reasonably believe there to be an active shooter are for these reasons instructed to..
• leave the area (run),
• hide if running is not an option, and
• fight only as a last resort when cornered and unable to run or hide.

After the fact, active shooters also tend to have things such as manifestos or statements of intent which show that they were explicitly there to do harm.
• They don't tend to clean graffiti in the mornings before mass killings — they usually reserve that time for dancing around in their grandmother's underwear while eating peanut butter off of their elbows.
• They don't offer people first aid and try to put out fires moments before shooting a person who attacks them.
• They don't run *towards* police while avoiding conflict with people who could easily be shot.
• They don't avoid killing at nearly all costs.

If you confuse the symptoms displayed by Rittenhouse with the symptoms of an active shooter and you take lethal force in response, you will likely find yourself in jail for a long time.

[jergul]: "A reasonable [commie whose reproductive organs have been removed by state decree and who lacks the accompanying instincts for self-preservation] would have thought Kyle was an active shooter in a crowd environment."

Fixed that.

[jergul]: "Yepp, never confront an active shooter. Shoot him."
[jergul]: "My point is that this is the moral of the Rittenhouse affair."

The point of the Rittenhouse case is that people should probably not commit arson, riot, or attack people — especially people carrying firearms — and should instead obey the law and respond appropriately to the deterrent of a firearm by not attacking the firearm holder.

In the case of a *true* active shooter, Samaritans must evaluate whether their perceptions of that "shooter" are reasonable and supported as such by law.
• If Samaritans think that that person is an "active shooter" because that person is running away from them to the police while avoiding people, then that Samaritan's decision to shoot may well result in prison time.
• If, on the other hand, that Samaritan evaluates an "active shooter" because that shooter is shooting anyone and everyone and the very act of being seen by that person clearly results in death in all cases regardless of the means of approach or the conditions of one's presence around the shooter, then Samaritans may reasonably be able to respond to that shooter with lethal force. Even so, people are advised against this by nearly all governments. Reasonable people (especially those without adequate training) are advised, "Run, hide, fight," not "Fight, fight, fight."

..
[tw]: "judge w/ accused murderer hanging out over his shoulder"

Alternate title: Judge understands that Rittenhouse is not a threat to anyone not attacking him; doesn't even worry about Rittenhouse when directly behind him.

[tw]: "Kyle now needs charged for impersonating an EMT"

Not gonna happen.
That would be a ludicrous charge, it can easily be argued down with even a half-wit defense attorney, and it would be seen as a predatory charge by the state. District Attorneys typically have to back away from petty charges like that after a loss because they can face lawsuits for damages. The prosecution may *already* be sued for damages by Rittenhouse's lawyers based on this trial outcome alone, so defense and prosecution may preemptively come to an agreement that neither will pursue charges against the other. If one sues, the other will sue, and the defense has a much better case.

The only likely charge coming to Rittenhouse would be for a straw purchase, since that would be a federal/DOJ issue. Even so, that remains Dominick Black's issue more so than Rittenhouse's, and, as I've said before, because Dominick Black retained physical possession of the rifle after purchase and it was he who signed the paperwork (not Rittenhouse), Rittenhouse would be able to argue that they did not bypass firearms ownership, so I don't expect Rittenhouse to face *substantial* penalties. The DOJ's announcement of a witch hunt colors this prediction negatively, but even the DOJ has limitations. For instance, a major limitation for the DOJ is that they were endorsed on this issue by Jerry Nadler, who is a frumpy troll.

..
[kargen]: "Horrible business model but it is all they have."

I think this trial might be a good wake-up for a lot of people. Because lots of people decided to learn about the actual details of this case from primary sources (e.g., the un-edited trial footage), they may have just realized that their favored media sources were spreading outright propaganda. The business model of propaganda does not work when people seek out alternate sources outside of the Cathedral's approved list. I've even seen people on Imgur and r/politics (pure left-wing propaganda) pushing back and correcting people on Rittenhouse misinformation. I suspect that the people with decent memories will evade those propaganda streams for at least a little while.

..
[kargen]: "You saying active shooter over and over and over and over and over and over isn't going to change the fact that there was no active shooter."

Propagandists have to keep repeating things to trick people into believing them. That's why the Politburo has been saying words such as "white supremacist", "racist", and "active shooter" so much. They want the proles to believe that words create reality rather than reality necessitating that people search for appropriate words.

..
[Mayor Bill de Blasio]: "Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today. [/] The only reason they’re not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people."

Oo, misinformation even *after* the evidence was solidified in court. I hope the Rittenhouse lawyers make note of him for a libel suit. De Blasio can probably write a decent check.

Sadly, the Gavin Newsom, Cori Bush, and Nadler Tweets — while predictably retarded — technically would be protected by free speech since they skirt the line on specifics. De Blasio, though, directly named Rittenhouse and told a direct lie about what he did.

..
[J.Reid of Politburo]: "While we’re out reacting and processing the Rittenhouse verdict, please spare a thought for the families of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, who are mourning, and for Gaige Grosskreutz and Jacob Blake. There is nothing here but tragedy, and these families are in pain."

I actually do have empathy, so I visited Hannah Gittings’ Twitter page (she was Huber's GF). She clearly lost someone she loves, and people were saying some terrible things to her. Some people were even posting images of Huber's dead body being loaded into an ambulance. I would not say things like that to a person who just lost someone.

That said, she can't hear this, so: she and Huber clearly had an abusive relationship (physically and emotionally) founded on drug use and immorality. They were heroin users together, they relapsed together, they were physically violent with each other, and they excused each other by blaming their problems on "the system". In a media address after the verdict, Gittings stood with BLM propagandists and stated that she had no intent to reform her life. She continued in ignorance to blame the system and vowed to commit to violent "action" in the future. She clearly enjoyed being "somebody" in the spotlight more so than she was hurting over losing someone she loves, and she does not have enough of a mind left after drug use to assemble any kind of virtue for her remaining life. I'd expect that any donations she receives will go into drugs and further self-destruction.

..
[Rugian]: "In jerguland, you would just let the criminals do whatever I guess."

Norway is just waiting for the strong to grant it death.
Zardoz!

[Rugian]: "Jergul
We get it already dude, you don't live here and you don't understand firearms."

Hell yeah.

[Rugian]: "Pure Democratic Party propaganda. Hopefully Rittenhouse sues politifact into oblivion"

Lulz. The hilarious thing is that PolitiFact tried separating the verdict and the court findings with their *interpretation* (i.e., their *mis-characterizing*) of what Trump said. Classic PolitiFact :D

[Rugian]: "Sure, he probably shouldn't have been there. [/] The rioters shouldn't have been there either though."

Exactly.
Can't have one without the other without falling into abuser logic. If someone only wants for *Rittenhouse* to not have been there, then they likely have a blind spot for the rioters. The rioters had no right to riot, but people do indeed have a right to defend their cities from lawlessness. So, "he should never have been there in the first place" is only true if framed correctly: "Rittenhouse should not have **had to** have been there; the rioters should not have forced citizens to take a stand and protect their city."

..
[Sam Adams]: "Between the left on rittenhouse and the right on vaccines"

The difference is that the left is almost universally incorrect about Rittenhouse, whereas the right has many legitimate reasons to worry about shots.

It might not be correct to think the more absurd things about shots, like that vaccines "[magnetize arms]" or that "[Bill Gates put nano-bots in the vaccines]" (those things definitely have the absurdity of Rittenhouse trial misinformation). Still, I think people rightly have concerns over the corporate capture of public health, with vaccines acting as the Trojan Horse for additional federal health policy. People are also quite correct to individually weigh their potential COVID exposure, immunity, and PPE against the efficacy of the available shots and the potential side effects. If government policy had approached this correctly, individualism could have been respected while still advocating for shots.

I have an entire thread about my problem with the precedents set by the Biden mandates, and I didn't get any of those concerns from Facebook or any social media. Few sources even seem aware of the issues, and if people's first wake-up call will only occur when they're being mandated flu shots in Q1 2022, it may be too late to protest.

..
[tw]: "also apparently Tucker had a team embedded with Kyle the whole time and has a ‘documentary’ coming out"

Yep. That releases on Monday. Carlson scooped everyone.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 07:31:45
CC
You seem to be arguing that Rittenhouse was out hunting rioter, naydowells and other undesirables.

I find the lithurgies of your cult fascinating.
Seb
Member
Sun Nov 21 10:07:09
Nim:

"The fact that some people in the rioting crowd "thought" ..."

This is a construction I find quite self serving.

Rittenhouse was as much "in the rioting crowd" as anyone else.

This is a somewhat contrived linguistic construction that aims to separate one individual (there are numerous examples of counter-protesters aiming to provoke violence they are part of the rioting crowd) while lumping anyone he may have come across as intrinsically criminal by association on the basis of assumed political affiliation and geographic presence.

How can we have civil protest if the slightest presence of criminality within it renders the entire protest illegitimate and all people present of a particular political affiliation unable to aviso themselves of they protection of the law?

Similarly, why does this apply only to the protestors not counter-protesters?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Nov 21 10:13:49
Irrelevant detail, see revision:

The fact that some people "thought" something, does not mean that what they thought was correct and certainly not that Rittenhouse' response to their thoughts put into action was illegal. You can legally get killed in an act of self-defense for doing things you thought were the correct thing to do at the time based on incomplete or distorted information.
Habebe
Member
Sun Nov 21 10:52:29
Seb,"Rittenhouse was as much "in the rioting crowd" as anyone else."

There are distinct factions though.A cultural difference I think doesn't play out in the UK as it does in the US.

Kyle was clearly part of the police allied faction.Putting out fires and seting them do not become the same thing due to proximity.

As for the cultural aspect, as a Brit you rely in general on the police for general protection.

There is no such public contract in most of the US. It is more up to citizens, still a little wild West

What Kyle did was not uncommon, if you look at riots nationwide there were many who went out to defend their neighborhoods from being burnt and robbed.

Now Im not saying that's all the protests were about. But These things were common and a reasonable fear of having your town destroyed were not unfounded.


The police and politicians were not enough to keep the peace.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Nov 21 11:04:49
"How can we have civil protest if the slightest presence of criminality within it"

"Slightests criminality?"

Rofl. Who told you that? MSNBC?

Oh dont worry about the burnt out buildings, gunshots, violent assaults, a few murders, rampant property damage and looting. Its just slightly criminal.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Nov 21 11:08:20
Bottom line: there will be law and order in our community. Through either an aggressive police/justice system or through vigilantes and neighborhood militias.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 11:24:27
And armed first amendment folk.

The only thing I am unsure of is how assaults and murders are even possible in an active self-defense environment.

Rugian
Member
Sun Nov 21 11:26:10
Rugian
Member
Sun Nov 21 11:26:40
It's easy for Seb to just write off the violence that these rioters engaged in. *He* wasn't affected by it, so what does he care?
Habebe
Member
Sun Nov 21 11:27:18
What are first amendment folk?
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 11:27:43
http://www...demographics-of-gun-ownership/

The numbers are a bit warped still, but all it takes is a good democrat with a gun, so 1 of 5 carrying is actually sufficient.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 21 11:28:45
People out practicing their right to free speech of course.
Rugian
Member
Sun Nov 21 11:30:22
Rittenhouse wouldn't have even needed to be there if the police had been allowed to do their job in the first place.

But Democratic governors and mayors routinely sided *with* the rioters, and gave them free reign to engage in their orgy of anarchy, because they had the "correct" politics. Being on the side of the "woke" was more important to them than maintaining law and order in their communities.

It's facts like that that Seb conveniently ignores. Yes, if our institutions had been functioning properly, he wouldn't have been needed there that night. But they WEREN'T functioning (by design, at the hands of Democratic insurrectionists), and he WAS needed as a result.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Nov 21 11:31:57
"The only thing I am unsure of is how assaults and murders are even possible in an active self-defense environment."

Most occur in far left city centers where guns are banned. When antifa-blm rioters try to go to the suburbs is generally when they run into the militia.
Habebe
Member
Sun Nov 21 19:01:22
http://twi...?t=WdtWqEFimal9HRvtKjXkyA&s=19

Kyle may be found guilty after all:)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Nov 21 20:46:47
shot because they might possibly harm a young boy: Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz, Harambe
Forwyn
Member
Sun Nov 21 20:55:11
Putting out fires is the same as starting fires. Perching on rooftops to defend businesses is the same as looting businesses.

Rofl Seb

"How can we have civil protest if the slightest presence of criminality within it renders the entire protest illegitimate and all people present of a particular political affiliation unable to aviso themselves of they protection of the law?"

No one did this. Great strawman.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Nov 21 22:17:43
[jergul]: "You seem to be arguing that Rittenhouse was out hunting rioter, naydowells and other undesirables."

That's a misrepresentation.
I was arguing *not* that Rittenhouse was hunting but that the nihilistic misfits who attacked him were searching for their own deaths. Rittenhouse granted them their salvation.
ZARDOZ!

..
[Habebe]: "Kyle may be found guilty after all:)"

lulz

..
[tw]: "shot because they might possibly harm a young boy: Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz, Harambe"

Harambe, praises be upon him, was an angel with no criminal record :'( .. he wouldn't have harmed anyone. The boy didn't truly know safety until he was in Harambe's beautiful embrace.

Good night, Harambe, Sweet Prince — wherever you are ★✧✩★✧✩★✧✩★ ☽

..
[Sam Adams]: "Oh dont worry about the burnt out buildings, gunshots, violent assaults, a few murders, rampant property damage and looting. Its just slightly criminal."

You have to admire the optics:
http://i.imgur.com/ab5yryI.mp4
Even those who declare themselves good Bolsheviks might well be treated as Mensheviks. The Purge does not stop at the royals nor the aristocracy.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 23 05:37:12
Forwyn:

But he didn't perch on rooftops, he wound up provoking a violent altercation that led to two dead and one wounded.

That's exactly how riots and bar room brawls start - provocation begets provocation until it spirals out of control into widespread violence where everyone thinks they have a justification for their actions.

This is why sane countries don't encourage armed vigilantism.
Habebe
Member
Tue Nov 23 06:05:30
Seb,Cultural differences.In the US most Scandinavians would be considered child abusers for leaving kids out in the cold.

In the US a mix of factors have come together to create a strong culture of individual self reliance and defense.Starting with someone treating us likenjust another colony:)

We have no expectation of police protection that I would venture you do.The SCOTUS has confirmed this.

During the 1992 black riots look at Korea town. They were targeted because of perceptions about them and theire race and had to defend themselves and their stores.

Hence the term rooftop Koreans.

For starters the sheer size of the landmass in the US.The melting pot of cultures.

Jergul likes to brag about how many immigrants Norway has but its like 90% Scandinavian.

They dont have the blacks VS asian race wars for example. More languages are spoken in NYC than all of the official languages of Europe with people all walks of life and cultures.

Euros love to think that the US is all basically the same but the EUnis very different cultures/states.

And there are definitely differences but it ignores how different the US really is.

As for vigilantism , defending tour neighborhood from being ronbed and burnt to the ground IMHO is not vigilante behaviour.

Its a loaded term used to skew the narrative in this case.

Should people have let BLM destroy and loot their city?

Democrats seem ok with that.Nordstrom near San Fran last night had a group of 80 guys in ski masks and crowbar loot them, many stores in the area are fleeing these liberal cities even while still subsidized.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 23 07:04:28
"provoking"
"vigilantism"

He didn't provoke anything, and it wasn't vigilantism. He was putting out fires when he was ambushed by two men, one of them armed with a handgun.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 23 07:11:52
Forwyn:

He was involved in altercation trying to put out a fire which probably involved him discharging a fire extinguisher over some people who were trying to set said fire - in a garbage hopper.

If someone sprayed me with water/foam/sublimated co2 I'd get pretty provoked.

Habebe:

Your country was literally founded on the basis of violent destruction of property as a form of political protest, and a violent rebellion provoked by the disproportionate and violent response.



Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 23 07:25:10
Attorney 1: (33:37)
Okay. On the way to Car Source three, did you have any interaction with Mr. Rosenbaum?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (33:49)
I did not.

Attorney 1: (33:49)
Did you speak to Mr. Rosenbaum?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (33:51)
No.

Attorney 1: (33:52)
Did you notice Mr. Rosenbaum doing anything as you went down to Car Source three?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (33:58)
I didn’t notice Mr. Rosenbaum until he came out from behind the car and ambushed me.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 23 07:26:14
Kyle Rittenhouse: (34:36)
As I’m walking down Sheridan Road, I hear somebody scream, “Burn in hell.” And I reply with, “Friendly, friendly, friendly.” To let them know, hey, I’m just here to help. I don’t want any problems. I just want to put out the fires if there are any. I continue walking and then I notice the Duramax, I notice a flame in the back seat of the Duramax and I stepped towards the Duramax and as I’m stepping forward, I believe his name is now Joshua Ziminski, he steps towards me with a pistol in his hand. As I’m walking towards to put out the fire, I drop the fire extinguisher and I take a step back.

Attorney 1: (35:28)
Okay. When you step back from MR. Ziminski, what’s your plan?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (35:35)
My plan is to get out of that situation and go back north down Sheridan Road to where the Car Source lot number two was.

Attorney 1: (35:46)
And did you get back, were you able to go in a northerly direction?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (35:52)
I wasn’t.

Attorney 1: (35:53)
Describe what happens.

Kyle Rittenhouse: (35:54)
Once I take that step back, I look over my shoulder and Mr. Rosenbaum was now running from my right side and I was cornered from, in front of me with Mr. Ziminski and there were three people right there.

Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 23 07:29:16
Kyle Rittenhouse: (01:15)
Once I got to that car and I stepped forward to put that fire in the Deramax out, Mr. Ziminski stepped towards me, I went to go run back South down Sheridan and Mr. Rosenbaum was right there at the corner of the Deramax starting to chase me. And that’s when I realized the only place I can run with the people around me is straight towards the building of the car source lot number three.

Attorney 1: (01:48)
When you saw Mr. Rosenbaum, that’s when you said, “Friendly, friendly.”

Kyle Rittenhouse: (01:51)
When I heard, “Burn inside.” I don’t know exactly where I was at in the time for that.

Attorney 1: (01:57)
Did Mr. Rosenbaum say anything to you?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (02:00)
No. Mr. Ziminski instructed, Mr. Rosenbaum to get him and kill him. That’s what I heard.

Attorney 1: (02:07)
And you go running, what’s been referred to the Southwest corner of Car Source?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (02:17)
Yes.

Attorney 1: (02:18)
And as you’re running in that direction, describe being chased. What was happening?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (02:24)
As I’m running in that Southwest direction, Mr. Rosenbaum throws, at the time, I know it’s a bag now, but when he threw it at me with the light, it looked silver and it looked like the chain when he threw it at me. And then, I turn around for about a second while continuing to run and I point my gun at Mr. Rosenbaum.

Attorney 1: (02:56)
Does that stop him from chasing you?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (02:58)
It does not.

Attorney 1: (02:59)
Okay. After you turn around and you head your hands up in a low ready position …

Kyle Rittenhouse: (03:05)
Yes.

Attorney 1: (03:06)
… and you see Mr. Rosenbaum coming at you?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (03:09)
Yes.

Attorney 1: (03:11)
And what do you do then?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (03:14)
After he throws the bag and he continues to run, he’s gaining speed on me. A gunshot is fired from behind me, directly behind me and I take a few steps and that’s when I turn around. And as I’m turning around, Mr. Rosenbaum is I would say from me to where the judge is coming at me with his arms out in front of him. I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun.

Attorney 1: (03:47)
And why didn’t you just keep running?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (03:52)
When I was over there, there were about 100 people surrounding those cars, and there was no space for me to continue to run to.

Attorney 1: (04:04)
Okay. And so, you turned around?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (04:06)
Yes.

Attorney 1: (04:07)
And as you see him lunging at you, what do you do?

Kyle Rittenhouse: (04:11)
I shoot him.
Habebe
Member
Tue Nov 23 07:44:24
Seb, A very british thing to say.

But your being intentionally vague to make them seem similar.

Your nation came about in the same manner as Nazi Germany. Humans came together and created laws.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 23 08:14:01
Habebe:

I think you don't know your history - but do go and draw the parallels between Scotland's failed imperial venture in Panama leading them to bankruptcy and then having their parliament negotiate Union with England as a bailout to Nazi Germany.

Care to explain the differences that made the Boston Tea party destruction of private property that did not own good, the redcoats violently putting them down bad; and why the reverse is the case with regards to BLM rioters.
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 23 08:46:16
Habebe doesn't strike me as someone who benefitted from an education in history during his formative years.

But Seb is insane if he thinks the Boston Tea Party justifies BLM riots in 2021.
Habebe
Member
Tue Nov 23 10:11:36
Seb, True or false

In both cases did more than one human come together?

In both cases were laws created?


My point being that if you go down your route of loosely and intentionally vaguely comparing things you can make anything fit.

I dont think the creation of the state's were the same.I do think it's on par with the craziness your stating comoaring the US war for independence and BLM riots.

Seb
Member
Tue Nov 23 10:30:56
Habebe:

"In both cases did more than one human come together?

In both cases were laws created?"

Ah, I see, you think that the only parallels between the Boston tea party and BLM are that they involve people and a riot?

Point I am making is:
1. you are grossly simplifying the entire BLM movement and protests as "rioting".

2. If you did the same thing to the American independence movement, you would say "just a bunch of rioters destroying property to justify tax evasion".

You need to look at things more holistically - what is insane is to apply an intensely reductionist filter "There are two factions, the police and law and order, and the bad people, anyone who is not aligned with the police are bad people, and anyone not aligned with the bad people are obviously law and order".

A minor, carrying a gun into a tense protest where there is likely to be violence, and then confronting people - that is not the hall mark of law and order. That is a reckless act likely to create more violence - the minor is likely to engender a situation where he is forced to use lethal force to protect himself, which he would not, if he was not carrying a gun.

A garbage hopper being set on fire - that's the fucking hallmark of protests for pretty much ages. Do you really want me to show you pictures of strikers around garbage cans on fire from all sorts of other protests - and hardly the end of the world.

Getting into a situation where you provoke a violent confrontation over such a thing that leaves two dead and one injured is not a good thing, it is not a sensible thing, it is why we don't have "oh, vigilantes, they are great, they align with the police", but instead have trained officers of the law with delegated powers in the first place.

The fact that these protest were aimed at the police and their abuse of powers, process, misconduct complicates matters further.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 23 10:33:40
Tl;dr:

People crossing state lines with weapons, to attend a protest, are behaving in reckless behaviour. They are anticipating violence, clearly planning on undertaking reckless behaviour they anticipate to provoke an attack (or why do they need the gun) - the presence of weapons are likely to provoke fear of violence and hair trigger responses in others.

But find, if that is the way it needs to be, perhaps all civil protests should be carried out by armed milita in future. I'm sure that is going to lead to a productive democracy rather than periodic massacres where everyone claims self defence.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 23 10:34:14
*engaging in reckless behaviour.
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 23 10:48:43
'People crossing state lines with weapons"

False. Kyle did not cross state lines with the weapon. Also, he was only 20 minutes away from Kenosha and had family there, so he has ties to the city. Also, you claiming to care about him crossing state lines is clearly disingenuous, since the United States has open borders and crossing state lines isn't an issue other than on a strictly legal one.

Get your facts straight.
Habebe
Member
Tue Nov 23 10:50:06
"1. you are grossly simplifying the entire BLM movement and protests as "rioting"."

I'm actually not, lets look at only the protests that turned into riots.

I'm not talking about two guys in a fight and a broken window but when you see hordes of people looting and burning buildings, that's a riot. I think we can all agree that Kenosha was rioting and arson.

Plenty of BLM protests stayed peacefully.

The revolutionary war was intended and sanctioned violence against a tyranical state.

They had an end goal that was very reasonably attained.Get foreign troops out and ket use govern ourselves.

What is the end goals in looting a foot locker?

Is that foot locker shooting young black men? You once took notice of the difference in civil disobedience and just breaking the law for self gain.

If anything BLM has hurt its cause more than helped.

Habebe
Member
Tue Nov 23 10:53:39
"False. Kyle did not cross state lines with the weapon. Also, he was only 20 minutes away from Kenosha and had family there, so he has ties to the city. "

Not only did he have family there, he had alot of family there.He seemed more the odd one out living down the street.He also worked there.

For all intensive purposes he was a Kenosha and paid taxes regularly in the town even ( through his job and sales tax)

Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 23 11:15:20
To put the "crossed state lines" thing into terms that Seb can understand:

It'd be like if British Kyle drove from Sutton, Greater London, to Epsom, Surrey, where he regularly goes to hang out with family, and legally picked up his 2" knife there, before going to defend a neighborhood that had previously been ransacked by rioters.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 23 11:16:15
I like how Seb skipped right over the testimony, corroborated by drone footage, and continues with the "provoke" retardation.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 23 11:18:50
Also lol @ comparing the assets of a multinational company granted governance and tax powers over entire subcontinents to people's cars
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 24 06:27:21
Rugian:

Ah, so he was visiting family was he, and just happened to find himself getting into altercations with protestors on the Street?

Yes, I agree with your geographical analogy and that is exactly my point - he went there specifically with the intent to intervene with protestors, anticipating violence, carrying a lethal weapon.

That's participating in civil disorder.
murder
Member
Wed Nov 24 08:32:01

"Most occur in far left city centers where guns are banned. When antifa-blm rioters try to go to the suburbs is generally when they run into the militia."

A rando with a gun is not a militia. Groups of randos with guns are not militias. Militias are state and federal units and they are governed accordingly.

Any other "militia" is an armed mob.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share