Nothing about this is a protest. (NSFW Racial Expletives)

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

Indirectly responsible through the violent crime bill of the mid-late 90s that put an additional 100,000 cops on the street at a higher rate, which I would imagine was implemented rather hastily. 

Highlighted the problem in your post.  Why do you think they were poorly trained, or that it was implemented hastily?  There is no evidence of that.

 

Correct.  At this time more research is needed (as always) to determine the relationship between the significant increase of nearly 100,000 police from 1994-2000 and the significant increase in fatal police shootings starting in 2000 - 2020.

 

I accept Bitcoin:

3BXzaixAFneXgb8gsVAgwqmbBhN5sdFLPM

[turtlespeed 220]

23 hours ago, nigel99 said:

So if a BLM person decided to step in and kill one of the police whose responsible for the killing of an innocent black person you would support their actions? Would they also get your applause?

I suppose it would depend on the actual situation.

If he was out of uniform, and involved with rioting and looting, and started chasing the guy down with a hand gun saying "Get Him" - I would absolutely defend his right to defend himself.

[turtlespeed 220]

On 8/28/2020 at 7:08 PM, jakee said:

Which he was doing illegally. I guess you were right, some people here aren’t nearly anti-criminal enough.

What he was doing was not illegal - it was what most people should be doing, but are too scared to do.

What he was doing it with is what he did wrong.

[jakee 1,497]

32 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

What he was doing was not illegal - it was what most people should be doing, but are too scared to do.

What he was doing it with is what he did wrong.

 You make zero sense. What he was doing it with was an assault rifle. An assault rifle is what is illegal for him to be carrying and threatening people with. 
 

Yoou disagree with it either because a) you must disagree with anything the left says or b) you must always support white people over black people.

 

Pick one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

What he was doing it with was an assault rifle. An assault rifle is what is illegal for him to be carrying and threatening people with. 
 

He's currently facing 6 charges. 2 counts of homicide with a dangerous weapon. One count of attempted homicide with a dangerous weapon. 2 counts of recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon. And one count of underage armed with a dangerous weapon.

Any claims of 'self defense' are groundless. 

In Wisconsin, the situation has to be 'unavoidable' to be considered self defense. 
He intentionally entered the curfew zone. He was there after the curfew went into effect (not entirely sure if he arrived before or after curfew). 
He deliberately put himself into the situation. While illegally armed. And his presence was illegal.
There's a pretty long case history that vigilantes cannot claim self defense.

I would not be surprised if the judge does not even allow the jury to hear testimony claiming self defense. 

The other 'really fun' part of this will be the civil lawsuits. Wrongful death by the survivors of the 2 dead, injury/disability by the guy who's arm was shot off.

The kid has no assets, but apparently his mom drove him (and may have been there too).

There are claims that the kid didn't bring the gun from Illinois (across state lines), but 'borrowed' it from another vigilante. If true, he's going to be part of it too.
There are screenshots floating around where the cops encouraged these assholes to show up armed. The cops are shown on video interacting with the kid. 

It's going to get expensive for the city and those who were part of getting the kid there with the gun.

[billvon 2,995]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What he was doing was not illegal

He was carrying a gun that it was illegal for him to possess.

He crossed a state line with an illegal weapon in order to participate in a riot.

He then hunted down and killed two people and crippled a third.

Can't get much more illegal than that.

[nigel99 479]

Just now, billvon said:

He was carrying a gun that it was illegal for him to possess.

He crossed a state line with an illegal weapon in order to participate in a riot.

He then hunted down and killed two people and crippled a third.

Can't get much more illegal than that.

But he’s white so it doesn’t count. He was defending the constitution and Trump

[turtlespeed 220]

11 minutes ago, billvon said:

He was carrying a gun that it was illegal for him to possess.

>>>>True.

He crossed a state line with an illegal weapon in order to participate in a riot.

>>>>False

He then hunted down and killed two people and crippled a third.

>>>>False

Can't get much more illegal than that.

>>>>False

What he was doing was morally and socially correct.  EVEREYONE should have been out there on the streets protecting that property and all property.

What tool he used to do that protecting of the business and himself is what was illegal.

He did not hunt anyone down.  An armed man was chasing him. Here is a picture of Grosskreutz moments after he was shot.  He is still holding the gun. 

Why is this guy not a vigilante as he was chasing down Rittenhouse?  Is it because you disagree with Rittenhouse's politics, and agree with Grosskreutz?

The kid was knocked to the ground and was getting beaten.

Rittenhouse was running away.  Why were they chasing him?  What did the guy hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard, while the guy was holding a rifle expect? 

Honestly - what would YOU expect to happen to you if you start wailing away with a club on a guy with a gun? 

Who were the vigilantes?  Who took the law into their own hands?  Who was chasing who?  Who attacked who?

 

[nigel99 479]

19 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

What he was doing was morally and socially correct.  EVEREYONE should have been out there on the streets protecting that property and all property.

What tool he used to do that protecting of the business and himself is what was illegal.

He did not hunt anyone down.  An armed man was chasing him. Here is a picture of Grosskreutz moments after he was shot.  He is still holding the gun. 

Why is this guy not a vigilante as he was chasing down Rittenhouse?  Is it because you disagree with Rittenhouse's politics, and agree with Grosskreutz?

The kid was knocked to the ground and was getting beaten.

Rittenhouse was running away.  Why were they chasing him?  What did the guy hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard, while the guy was holding a rifle expect? 

Honestly - what would YOU expect to happen to you if you start wailing away with a club on a guy with a gun? 

Who were the vigilantes?  Who took the law into their own hands?  Who was chasing who?  Who attacked who?

 

It is the job of the police to enforce law and order. What this guy did was the definition of vigilante. He should have stayed home not gone looking for trouble. 
I honestly can’t believe you are prepared to dig your heels in and continue to defend his actions. The views you are expressing here would be classified as domestic terrorism if you were Islamic and I’m pretty sure you would be pretty vocal about it. Pretty blatant double standards

[turtlespeed 220]

11 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

It is the job of the police to enforce law and order. What this guy did was the definition of vigilante. He should have stayed home not gone looking for trouble. 
I honestly can’t believe you are prepared to dig your heels in and continue to defend his actions. The views you are expressing here would be classified as domestic terrorism if you were Islamic and I’m pretty sure you would be pretty vocal about it. Pretty blatant double standards

Please describe the actions of the people who were shot that were different than being a vigilante. 

I'll wait.

You don't agree with Rittenhouse - so you cannot seem to see that there were more people, than just the 17yo kid that you should be condemning for vigilante actions.

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by turtlespeed

[turtlespeed 220]

12 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

It is the job of the police to enforce law and order.

Isn't it the loud call from the left that the police should be de funded?

They don't have enough to police for what they have to deal with now.  That seems to be overlooked though.  Someone needs to take up the slack.  The citizenry should be stepping up and protecting their own instead of needing others to do it for them.

[turtlespeed 220]

Here is a video - it seems obvious that the police are overwhelmed by the lawlessness they are trying to protect the city from, and they thank those that are willing to do something about it for their efforts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/tracing-kyle-rittenhouses-actions-the-night-of-the-shootings-in-kenosha-wis/2020/08/28/6c24b27c-2c5c-4dde-88f5-4d829bb3e992_video.html

 

[jakee 1,497]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What he was doing was morally and socially correct.  EVEREYONE should have been out there on the streets protecting that property and all property.

What tool he used to do that protecting of the business and himself is what was illegal.

Right. So he was committing crimes.

How ironic that you came into this thread shaking your head at people who aren't anti-crime enough yet here you are defending this kid's serious crimes which resulted in others deaths as being morally and socially correct. Not only, that, you're saying that everyone else should have participated in that criminal behaviour.

Quote

He did not hunt anyone down.  An armed man was chasing him. Here is a picture of Grosskreutz moments after he was shot.  He is still holding the gun. 

Why is this guy not a vigilante as he was chasing down Rittenhouse?  Is it because you disagree with Rittenhouse's politics, and agree with Grosskreutz?

No, it is because Grosskreutz was reacting to a murder he saw committed in front of him and made a snap decision to try and protect the lives of others. He did not go there with the express intention of being part of a paramilitary law enforcement group.

Also, consider that although Grosskreutz had a gun, and although Grosskreutz had already seen Rittenhouse commit murder, Grosskreutz made no attempt to use his weapon on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse on the other hand shot him without hesitation. 

In light of all of that I can see no reason but your partisan politics for you to be taking the stand you are on this matter.

[jakee 1,497]

 

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Please describe the actions of the people who were shot that were different than being a vigilante. 

I'll wait.

See above. This is a really easy one, to be honest. Really don't know why you need something so obvious to be explained to you.

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Isn't it the loud call from the left that the police should be de funded?

Defunded doesn't mean abolished.

Quote

They don't have enough to police for what they have to deal with now.  That seems to be overlooked though.  Someone needs to take up the slack. 

Overlooked? That is literally the biggest point of defunding the police.

Removing the massive amounts of mission creep that distract the police from their core duties. Taking some of the money away from providing more and more cops who are poorly trained at a vast multitude of tasks and using it to provide more social work and metal health etc. professionals who are well trained at specific tasks. Increasing the number of scenarios where police intervention is the last resort instead of the first resort. 

If you think the police have too much to deal with and someone else needs to take up the slack then you should be a vocal supporter of defunding the police. It's just a shame that your anti-left bias stops you from seeing that.

[turtlespeed 220]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Right. So he was committing crimes.

How ironic that you came into this thread shaking your head at people who aren't anti-crime enough yet here you are defending this kid's serious crimes which resulted in others deaths as being morally and socially correct. Not only, that, you're saying that everyone else should have participated in that criminal behaviour.

No, it is because Grosskreutz was reacting to a murder he saw committed in front of him and made a snap decision to try and protect the lives of others. He did not go there with the express intention of being part of a paramilitary law enforcement group.

>>>>You do not know that - that is your assumption.  That is very Trumpish of you.

Also, consider that although Grosskreutz had a gun, and although Grosskreutz had already seen Rittenhouse commit murder, Grosskreutz made no attempt to use his weapon on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse on the other hand shot him without hesitation. 

>>>>Again - its assumption.  You do not know what he has seen.  But he did comment that he wished he had killed Rittenhouse., so, at least you have that in your favor.

In light of all of that I can see no reason but your partisan politics for you to be taking the stand you are on this matter.

>>>>I know you can't.  That's why I think you are so closed minded.

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by turtlespeed

[jakee 1,497]

38 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You do not know that - that is your assumption.

So how do you know he's a vigilante exactly like Rittenhouse? You're arguing against yourself.

Quote

But he did comment that he wished he had killed Rittenhouse., so, at least you have that in your favor.

After he was shot by the guy and saw him murder two people? Yeah, I'm not suprised. But the fact remains that he did not do that, or attempt to do that. Despite that, you apparently think that his thought crime makes him a bad guy while Rittenhouse's real crimes make him a good guy. Go figure.

[wmw999 2,451]

Turtle, again, if the kid in question had been African-American, dressed in a hoodie, at the Charlottesville rally, maybe in the moments after the guy ran his car into the crowd and killing Heather Heyer, what would your reaction have been? Honestly?

The police are just as much there to protect the citizens of Minneapolis, including the violent ones, as they are there to protect the businesses of people with money. They are also there to protect visitors to the city.

Allowing the kid to run away, not "automatically reacting to a perceived threat," because the kid was white, is exactly what the protests are about. A knife on the floor of the car (i.e. not in his hands) was stated as a threat worthy of shooting Jacob Blake because he didn't immediately turn around and comply. Shots, a person running with a gun, and people pointing at him and saying "he's killed someone" is not a threat even worthy of stopping the guy. That's fucking bullshit.

Wendy P.

[kallend 2,027]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What he was doing was morally and socially correct.  EVEREYONE should have been out there on the streets protecting that property and all property.

What tool he used to do that protecting of the business and himself is what was illegal.

 

Funny how "guns don't kill people, people kill people", right up until it's someone you agree with, Then it's the tool (gun) and not the person (criminal).

Really nice double standard you are exhibiting there. 

Rittenhaus was a CRIMINAL the moment he carried a gun in Wisconsin.

C R I M I N A L

And while committing that CRIME he killed someone.

That is MURDER.

[jakee 1,497]

14 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Rittenhouse was running away.  Why were they chasing him?  What did the guy hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard, while the guy was holding a rifle expect? 

Honestly - what would YOU expect to happen to you if you start wailing away with a club on a guy with a gun? 

Just circling back on this - so it's Huber's own fault he was killed trying to protect others, because what did he expect?

So what did Rittenhouse expect? Riot control is a difficult job, yet this untrained, unprepared and inexperienced teenager decided to head out and give it ago. He decided to confront crowds of angry protestors while armed only with an assault rifle with no non-lethal options, no authority, and no other form of personal protection. What did he think was going to happen? How well do YOU expect that scenario to unfold?

[JerryBaumchen 1,364]

Hi folks,

Joe Biden has stated that he is NOT for defunding the police.

Anyone who thinks this is a position of the so-called 'left' should do their/some homework.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, I agree with Joe Biden.  However, I do believe that there should be changes made; i.e., stop this 'shooting to kill' thing when people are merely walking away.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Just circling back on this - so it's Huber's own fault he was killed trying to protect others, because what did he expect?

So what did Rittenhouse expect? Riot control is a difficult job, yet this untrained, unprepared and inexperienced teenager decided to head out and give it ago. He decided to confront crowds of angry protestors while armed only with an assault rifle with no non-lethal options, no authority, and no other form of personal protection. What did he think was going to happen? How well do YOU expect that scenario to unfold?

Its America, he's 17 and has a AR-15.

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts," Trump tweeted on Floyd protests. A look back at Trump comments inciting violence

'No Blame?' ABC News finds 54 cases invoking 'Trump' in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults.

Then he went to a trump rally."In a statement to BuzzFeed News on Wednesday, Trump 2020 campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said, “President Trump has repeatedly and consistently condemned all forms of violence and believes we must protect all Americans from chaos and lawlessness."

[turtlespeed 220]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Funny how "guns don't kill people, people kill people", right up until it's someone you agree with, Then it's the tool (gun) and not the person (criminal).

Really nice double standard you are exhibiting there. 

Rittenhaus was a CRIMINAL the moment he carried a gun in Wisconsin.

C R I M I N A L

And while committing that CRIME he killed someone.

That is MURDER.

That may indeed be the case. 

That doesn't waver my support of those business owners and other concerned citizens from protecting their property, businesses, and dwellings from people that are also criminals

Which criminal came first?  The looting, property damaging, vandal, or the kid that wanted to protect against that with a good moral stance?.

[jakee 1,497]

27 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That may indeed be the case. 

That doesn't waver my support of those business owners and other concerned citizens from protecting their property, businesses, and dwellings from people that are also criminals

Of course it doesn't. You're far too closed minded to waver no matter how wrong you obviously are.

The kid was at best - at best - dangerously naive, a deluded fantasist unprepared for and ignorant of the challenges and difficulties of his chosen course. Because of that, he shot people who were also concerned citizens trying to protect the people around them.

Unwavering support of people like him is simply insane. If your suggestion that everyone should act like him was followed we'd be lucky to avoid the collapse of society.

Quote

Which criminal came first?  The looting, property damaging, vandal, or the kid that wanted to protect against that with a good moral stance?

That's an abhorrent stance.

What evidence do you have that the people he murdered were looters or property damaging vandals? What evidence do you have that they were not there for good moral reasons, genuinely protesting against institutional racism?

Edited August 30, 2020 by jakee

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

The vigilantes were there to 'protect the property of the business owners.'

Right. 

Suuuuuuure they were.

https://www.newslockdown.com/recent/pro-madison-police-post-killing-protesters?fbclid=IwAR3gJRTq3bxz6GwDge-qJRW7TWjV6ueNel0Hw5Ly0HU9mI5WphOZ0owVrMM

This is a story about a page about vigilantes stopping protesters in Madison, not Kenosha. 

But I would bet that the FB pages (now taken down, but certainly archived) about Kenosha would have some very similar sentiments.

It would be interesting to know what/if Ritterhouse had posted.

And if they will be used in court.

[turtlespeed 220]

3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The vigilantes were there to 'protect the property of the business owners.'

Right. 

Suuuuuuure they were.

https://www.newslockdown.com/recent/pro-madison-police-post-killing-protesters?fbclid=IwAR3gJRTq3bxz6GwDge-qJRW7TWjV6ueNel0Hw5Ly0HU9mI5WphOZ0owVrMM

This is a story about a page about vigilantes stopping protesters in Madison, not Kenosha. 

But I would bet that the FB pages (now taken down, but certainly archived) about Kenosha would have some very similar sentiments.

It would be interesting to know what/if Ritterhouse had posted.

And if they will be used in court.

I agree.

I don't want you to think I'm supporting his possession of a firearm he shouldn't have.

I am very much saying that I support him defending the businesses and property.  That is what the citizenry, supported by the police, should all be doing.