# Should You Bring Your Gun To A Protest?



## Huntn

...should it be legal? I say Hell No, unless you want to see protests turned into tinder kegs and giant shoot outs. I’m really critical of  “militia” action where armed idiots dressed up for war show up at demonstrations. Besides it makes law enforcement a nightmare. Just imagine two armed groups squaring off with each other, and the protestors decide they’ll wear camo too.

A 100 policemen may be able to control a crowd of thousands, but if  thousands are now armed, the situation is out of control. When police decide to get physical, guns  make everything worse.

And the idiot who decided to shoot protestors, he deserves hard time and the likeS of Tucker Carlson should be tossed off Fox. 

Wisconsin
*Armed white men patrolling Kenosha protests organized on Facebook*








						Armed white men patrolling Kenosha protests organized on Facebook
					

Prior to shooting that left two dead, presence of militia prompted criticism from protesters – and some support from police




					www.theguardian.com
				




POS Alert!
*Tucker Carlson defends vigilante shooter, says he 'had to maintain order when no one else would'*








						Tucker Carlson defends vigilante shooter, says he 'had to maintain order when no one else would'
					

Tucker Carlson faced intense backlash after standing by the vigilante teen accused of fatally shooting two people during a Wisconsin protest.




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## Eric

Huntn said:


> ...should it be legal? I say Hell No, unless you want to see protests turned into tinder kegs and giant shoot outs. I’m really critical of  “militia” action where armed idiots dressed up for war show up at demonstrations. Besides it makes law enforcement a nightmare. Just imagine two armed groups squaring off with each other, and the protestors decide they’ll wear camo too.
> 
> A 100 policemen may be able to control a crowd of thousands, but if  thousands are now armed, the situation is out of control. When police decide to get physical, guns  make everything worse.
> 
> And the idiot who decided to shoot protestors, he deserves hard time and the likeS of Tucker Carlson should be tossed off Fox.
> 
> Wisconsin
> *Armed white men patrolling Kenosha protests organized on Facebook*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed white men patrolling Kenosha protests organized on Facebook
> 
> 
> Prior to shooting that left two dead, presence of militia prompted criticism from protesters – and some support from police
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> POS Alert!
> *Tucker Carlson defends vigilante shooter, says he 'had to maintain order when no one else would'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tucker Carlson defends vigilante shooter, says he 'had to maintain order when no one else would'
> 
> 
> Tucker Carlson faced intense backlash after standing by the vigilante teen accused of fatally shooting two people during a Wisconsin protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yahoo.com



If the black panthers showed up with assault weapons you can bet your ass Fox News would finally have an issue with it.


----------



## Eric

Republicans when a black person loots a Target:
Outrageous!!!!

Also Republicans when a white person runs into a crowd with an assault weapon and kills two protesters:
He's an American hero!

Those are some morals they have.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Huntn said:


> ...should it be legal?




I'd say no.


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> Also Republicans when a *white person runs into a crowd *with an assault weapon and kills two protesters:




Now, don't change facts. He didn't run into a crowd. He was on the sidelines, he was chased running towards the cops, he fell to the ground, one shouts “get his ass”, people got above him, one had a gun on him, he shot, other guy with a skateboard attacked, he shot. Don't make it look like he just picked up his weapon, ran towards the protesters, and started the shooting.


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> Now, don't change facts. He didn't run into a crowd. He was on the sidelines, he was chased running towards the cops, someone shot first, he fell to the ground, one shouts “get his ass”, people got above him, one had a gun on him, he shot, other guy with a skateboard attacked, he shot. Don't make it look like he just picked up his weapon, ran towards the protesters, and started the shooting.



Your relentless defense of the worst of these assholes is frankly tiring.


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> Your relentless defense of the worst of these assholes is frankly tiring.




I am not defending anything. Facts are facts. He might be legally liable - as I explained yesterday - but what you said is patently false and the videos are clear. Point to a single false fact I said.


----------



## DT

If I were to brandish a firearm, for example, take a handgun, stand out in the street and point it at the neighbors house, you know, to protect it "in case there's an attempted burglary", and the neighbor came running out towards me, also with a visible firearm, and I kill him - that's not self-defense, I was provoking the neighbors response.

It of course doesn't help that he apparently broke a couple of other laws as well, if I'm cutting through private property, someone comes out with a firearm, I shoot him first, that's not self-defense.

The worst thing about this is the people getting off on the whole "_Hyuck hyuck, I guess one o' them skateboards don't work so good again muh gun_ ..."


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> I am not defending anything. Facts are facts. He might be legally liable - as I explained yesterday - but what you said is patently false and the videos are clear. Point to a single false fact I said.



First, he has been charged with murder, but sure "legally liable". And yes, you absolutely defend every single one of these people, police and their actions on a regular basis and then get incredibly offended when people imply that it's racist.

Let me clarify, one does not need to use racist terms. When an unarmed black person is shot in the back, shot in their own home while in bed, or something similar, and the default position is to question the victim without ever speaking out against the people who are armed and killing them, it's systemic racism. 

When a white person takes a gun into a group of BLM protesters and the first instinct is to defend that person instead of asking about the people who were murdered, it's systemic racism.

We see it on Fox News and right wing outlets on a regular basis, what did that black person do to deserve it? Dig up an old photo of them with a joint, look at their arrest record, etc., anything to bring them down and mitigate the actual murder.

It's clear that this is why people are marching, and why they're angry. We're fed up with the right wing fascist view of iron fisted law & order.


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> First, he has been charged with murder, but sure "legally liable". And yes, you absolutely defend every single one of these people, police and their actions on a regular basis and then get incredibly offended when people imply that it's racist.




I am not defending him. At all. You can read what I wrote in the past few days.



> Let me clarify, one does not need to use racist terms. When an unarmed black person is shot in the back, shot in their own home while in bed, or something similar, and the default position is to question the victim without ever speaking out against the people who are armed and killing them, it's systemic racism.
> 
> When a white person takes a gun into a group of BLM protesters and the first instinct is to defend that person instead of asking about the people who were murdered, it's systemic racism.
> 
> We see it on Fox News and right wing outlets on a regular basis, what did that black person do to deserve it? Dig up an old photo of them with a joint, look at their arrest record, etc., anything to bring them down and mitigate the actual murder.
> 
> It's clear that this is why people are marching, and why they're angry. We're fed up with the right wing fascist view of iron fisted law & order.




Jesus fucking Christ, will you stop it? I am not defending anyone. I am pointing out that your statement "_person runs into a crowd with an assault weapon and kills two protesters_" is utterly, proven false and what I am saying is true:

In the course of investigating this incident, law enforcement reviewed and shared with your complainant multiple videos that appeared to be recorded on cell phones. Inthe first video, a male who was later identified to be Kyle H. Rittenhouse, DOB: 01/03/03 (hereinafter “ the defendant ) , i*s running southwest across the eastern portion of the Car Source parking lot*. The defendant is a resident of Antioch, IL. The defendant can clearly be seen holding a long gun, which was later recovered by law enforcement and identified as a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle. The recovered magazine for this rifle holds 30 rounds of ammunition. F*ollowing the defendant is Rosenbaum and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is a male who was later identified as Richard McGinnis, a reporter* .
The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, *Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant* . The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. *A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “Fuck you! , then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground*.

The third video that your complainant reviewed *shows the defendant running northbound on Sheridan Road after he had shot Rosenbaum*. The street and the sidewalk are full of people. *A group of several people begin running northbound on Sheridan Road behind the defendant *. *A person can be heard yelling what sounds like, Beat him up! person can be heard yelling what sounds like, Hey, he shot him !”* Your complainant reviewed a fourth video that showed a different angle of the defendant running northbound*. In this video a person can be heard yelling, Get him! Get that dude ! Then a male in a light-colored top runs towards the defendant and appears to swing at the defendant his right arm. This swing makes contact with the defendant , knocking his hat off. The defendant continues to run northbound. On the video a male can be heard saying something to the effect of, he do ? " Another male can be heard responding something to the effect of, “ Just shot someone .” Then a male can be heard yelling, “ Get his ass! The defendant then trips and falls to the ground.*
As* the defendant is on the ground, an unidentified male wearing a dark-colored top and light colored pants jumps at and over the defendant.* Based on the sounds of gunshots on the video and the positioning of the defendant's gun, it appears that he fires two shots in quick succession at this person. It appears that that person was not hit as he then runs away from the defendant. A* second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant who is still on the ground, on his back. *Huber has a skateboard in his right hand.* When Huber reaches the defendant it appears that he is reaching for the defendant's gun with his left hand as the skateboard makes contact with the defendant's left shoulder* . *Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant . The defendant rolls towards his left side and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun the gun is pointed at Huber's body. The defendant then fires one round which can be heard on the video. Huber staggers away, taking several steps, then collapses to the ground . Huber subsequently died from this gunshot wound.*
After shooting Huber, the defendant moves to a seated position and points his gun at a third male, later identified as Gaige Grosskreutz, who had begun to approach the defendant . When the defendant shot Huber, Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back. Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then moves towards the defendant who aims his gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him, firing 1 shot. *Grosskreutz was shot in the right arm.* *Grosskreutz appears to be holding a handgun in his right hand when he was shot.* Grosskreutz then runs southbound away from the defendant screaming for a medic and the defendant gets up and starts walking northbound. The defendant turns around facing southbound while walking backwards northbound with his firearm in a ready position, pointed towards the people in the roadway.


NOW, for the last time, will you get off my back as what I stated matches the State's criminal complaint?


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> I am not defending him. At all. You can read what I wrote in the past few days.
> 
> Jesus fucking Christ, will you stop it? I am not defending anyone. I am pointing out that your statement "_person runs into a crowd with an assault weapon and kills two protesters_" is utterly, proven false and what I am saying is true:
> 
> NOW, for the last time, will you get off my back as what I stated matches the State's criminal complaint?



As long as I see it, I'll be calling it out and defending the unarmed victims. Just as you are defending law enforcement and white people. It is what it is.


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> As long as I see it, I'll be calling it out and defending the unarmed victims. Just as you are defending law enforcement and white people. It is what it is.




dude, defend whoever you want. Just don’t state stuff that has never happened as facts to then cry racist when you’re made aware - with evidence - that your facts are wrong.


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> dude, defend whoever you want. Just don’t state stuff that has never happened as facts to then cry racist when you’re made aware - with evidence - that your facts are wrong.



I'm talking about a systemic pattern, one that always results in the defense of police and white people. Some are based in fact, some are twisted but it's always presented in such a way as to mitigate the actions of authority and demean the victims. It's okay Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson do the same thing, it doesn't change the fact that they're patently racists.


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> I'm talking about a systemic pattern, one that always results in the defense of police and white people. Some are based in fact, some are twisted but it's always presented in such a way as to mitigate the actions of authority and demean the victims. It's okay Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson do the same thing, it doesn't change the fact that they're patently racists.




I don’t watch either, and if you see a systemic pattern in what I say, I guess it’s more a Rorschach test than anything.
At times I don’t know if you actually read what I write; I don’t know how you can take my words - including what I explained to my son - and say that I am defending the dude, and more so that I am doing so because he’s white (aka calling me racist).


----------



## BigMcGuire

Police should be allowed to do their jobs and hell no, no weapons at protests! I don't feel safe driving near protests in my car, I can't imagine being part of one. I wouldn't want to risk my life or the life of my family doing that. (Personal opinion).

No weapons should be allowed period. Police should be able to enforce peaceful protests and quickly deal with any problems. By not dealing with problems we encourage... we tell others that they can get away with being problems.

As far as this kid with the rifle - It sickens me to hear that his mom drove him to this event, he tried to flee - seems like he went to this event looking for trouble and people readily gave it to him. I mean... .... really? Why do we allow guns at these events. That makes this kid look terrible in my eyes. But I'm not one to go protesting so...

Sadly, I think the police are probably way undermanned to deal with large protests like this.


Observations?
I do see the right quickly moving to protect this kid and focus on all the stuff they think he did right. I do see the left reacting to this kid as everything wrong with gun ownership, stamp Trump on him, etc. I don't care who you are or what side you're on - this kid seemed like he went in looking for blood. A 17 year old kid does not have the training or the discipline to handle a gun during high stress environments. That's guilty to me.


----------



## Alli

BigMcGuire said:


> No weapons should be allowed period. Police should be able to enforce peaceful protests and quickly deal with any problems. By not dealing with problems we encourage... we tell others that they can get away with being problems.




You’ve just made a perfect argument for gun control.

As for the kid in WI? He crossed state lines with a weapon. He was going hunting.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Alli said:


> You’ve just made a perfect argument for gun control.
> 
> As for the kid in WI? He crossed state lines with a weapon. He was going hunting.




Kid is weird to be honest. You can also see him offer his services as a trained EMT to protestors, while at the same time he goes to commit a clear act of provocation (being around with guns at protests to protect stores he's not an agent of). Go figure.


----------



## yaxomoxay

BigMcGuire said:


> It sickens me to hear that his mom drove him to this event,




Wow, I didn't know this. Wtf.


----------



## BigMcGuire

yaxomoxay said:


> Wow, I didn't know this. Wtf.




Yesterday I saw an article stating this. I'll try to find it.

I googled it and https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12519...-wendy-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-protests/ --- I guess it is in question. ?


----------



## yaxomoxay

BigMcGuire said:


> Yesterday I saw an article stating this. I'll try to find it.
> 
> I googled it and https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12519...-wendy-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-protests/ --- I guess it is in question. ?




If true, definitely a WTF thing.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

ericgtr12 said:


> Republicans when a black person loots a Target:
> Outrageous!!!!
> 
> Also Republicans when a white person runs into a crowd with an assault weapon and kills two protesters:
> He's an American hero!
> 
> Those are some morals they have.




The real hero is a white fetus with an assault rifle in one hand nub and an upside down bible in the other at a Walmart not wearing a face mask.  The founding fathers’ vision has been realized and we should all be overflowing with pride.


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> As long as I see it, I'll be calling it out and defending the unarmed victims. Just as you are defending law enforcement and white people. It is what it is.



seriously? the guy shot in the arm had a gun on his hand, the other clown used a skateboard, and the one with the head shot threw a brick.


----------



## jkcerda

antifa had ARs at CHAZ, freely passed them out.


----------



## Eric

jkcerda said:


> seriously? the guy shot in the arm had a gun on his hand, the other clown used a skateboard, and the one with the head shot threw a brick.



Yes, seriously. Feel free to cry a river about these grievances at that murdering asshole's trial.


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> Yes, seriously. Feel free to cry a river about these grievances at that murdering asshole's trial.



no need to "cry" , I don't see the moron in question being convicted of first degree murder, he was attacked by your "peaceful " arsonist with weapons.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Sounds like Portland is doing an experiment in letting the Proud Boys do the dirty work while the police just standby observing.  

They just need a uniform.  I'm thinking something like this.






The actual police can keep their standard black uniforms.  That already works.


----------



## jkcerda

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Sounds like Portland is doing an experiment in letting the Proud Boys do the dirty work while the police just standby observing.
> 
> They just need a uniform.  I'm thinking something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual police can keep their standard black uniforms.  That already works.



er, did you mean CHAZ? they are the ones who took over a section where murder/rapes/robberies/extortion took place and handed out AR 15s freely.


----------



## Eric

jkcerda said:


> no need to "cry" , I don't see the moron in question being convicted of first degree murder, he was attacked by your "peaceful " arsonist with weapons.



Oh, they drug him into that crowd and made him fear for his life? My mistake, for some reason I thought he was branching an assault weapon and went in on his own accord. My bad.


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> Oh, they drug him into that crowd and made him fear for his life? My mistake, for some reason I thought he was branching an assault weapon and went in on his own accord. My bad.



does NOT matter WHY he was there, no one has the right to assault him for being there.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

I must say that I originally thought - when I skimmed the title - that it read "Should You Bring Your Girl To A Protest?" and my initial thought was, well, a rather gallant, if courtly and frankly, old-fashioned attitude to have (I did know an elderly man, my godmother's next-door-neighbour,  who brought his wife on a date to a political gathering during the 1945 election campaign), and then, I blinked, and re-read the title, a little more closely.

Who in their right mind would want (or even think) to bring a gun to a protest (or political gathering) unless you were looking for trouble?


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> does NOT matter WHY he was there, no one has the right to assault him for being there.




Does he have a right to shoot people just for being there?


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Does he have a right to shoot people just for being there?



he shot in self defense per the video posted.


----------



## jkcerda

Scepticalscribe said:


> I must say that I originally thought - when I skimmed the title - that it read "Should You Bring Your Girl To A Protest?" and my initial thought was, well, a rather gallant, if courtly and frankly, old-fashioned attitude to have (I did know an elderly man, my godmother's next-door-neighbour,  who brought his wife on a date to a political gathering during the 1945 election campaign), and then, I blinked, and re-read the title, a little more closely.
> 
> Who in their right mind would want to even think to bring a gun to a protest (or political gathering) unless you were looking for trouble?



the minute you bring a gun into a protest NO ONE gives a shit what you are protesting about, they only care about the gun so I will agree here.


----------



## Eric

jkcerda said:


> does NOT matter WHY he was there, no one has the right to assault him for being there.



Funny, law enforcement charged him with two counts of murder. This is law & order, I thought you stood for that? Pick a side man, you're all over the map.


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> Funny, law enforcement charged him with two counts of murder. This is law & order, I thought you stood for that? Pick a side man, you're all over the map.



OJ was charged with murder.............. charges don't always stick and per the video I don't see the moron getting convicted.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> he shot in self defense per the video posted.




Nope. I watched it. There was a gunshot; people near him in the crowd thought he was the shooter and were attempting to defend themselves.









						Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings
					

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## SuperMatt

ericgtr12 said:


> Funny, law enforcement charged him with two counts of murder. This is law & order, I thought you stood for that? Pick a side man, you're all over the map.




He doesn't seem to care about anything but triggering the libs. If you are mad at the cops, he supports the cops. If you're mad at white kids gunning people down with AR-15s, he supports them.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Nope. I watched it. There was a gunshot; people near him in the crowd thought he was the shooter and were attempting to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings
> 
> 
> Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com



one of the guys who tried killing the kid hand a glock on him and he was a convicted felon, plenty of those "peaceful" protesters are armed so , of you listen to the video the AR makes a distinct sound.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> He doesn't seem to care about anything but triggering the libs. If you are mad at the cops, he supports the cops. If you're mad at white kids gunning people down with AR-15s, he supports them.



you guys are funny, already said a few times, burn down the police station & governors office, take out the anger where it belongs not at your neighbors.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> one of the guys who tried killing the kid hand a glock on him and he was a convicted felon, plenty of those "peaceful" protesters are armed so , of you listen to the video the AR makes a distinct sound.




Everybody in a crowd knows the sounds of different guns? That's pretty funny dude. Where's the source for your claim about the Glock and convicted felon? I know your previous "source" was an apparent faked screenshot since I searched the website myself and there's no such person on the site. Your credibility at this point is completely shredded.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> you guys are funny, already said a few times, burn down the police station & governors office, take out the anger where it belongs not at your neighbors.




Most people want peaceful, not violent, protests. Funny, ever since the crazy right-winger gun-humpers went home, the Kenosha protests have been peaceful. We can see who the real problem children are.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

jkcerda said:


> er, did you mean CHAZ? they are the ones who took over a section where murder/rapes/robberies/extortion took place and handed out AR 15s freely.




Only if the CHAZ criminals were chanting Biden 2020 and Biden considered them good true Americans. Then they should uniform up too.

Honestly, it’s getting all Gangs of New York out there and their only true enemy is whoever shows up at the time.  This is what happens when you can’t go to a concert mosh pit.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Most people want peaceful, not violent, protests. Funny, ever since the crazy right-winger gun-humpers went home, the Kenosha protests have been peaceful. We can see who the real problem children are.



did you mean that ever since the convicted criminals got shot things got peaceful? did they really get peaceful or did they run out of things to burn?


----------



## Eric

jkcerda said:


> you guys are funny, already said a few times, burn down the police station & governors office, take out the anger where it belongs not at your neighbors.



I thought you guys were anti-Government too, now you want to save their buildings? It's a hard time to be a right wing nutjob.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> did you mean that ever since the convicted criminals got shot things got peaceful? did they really get peaceful or did they run out of things to burn?




Again, you make claims with no sources, and even when you provide sources, they're from conspiracy theory websites and turn out to be fake most times. You're full of baloney.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> Everybody in a crowd knows the sounds of different guns? That's pretty funny dude. Where's the source for your claim about the Glock and convicted felon?




The source for the handgun is in the arrest warrant I published above. I even bolded it.



> There was a gunshot; people near him in the crowd thought he was the shooter and were attempting to defend themselves.




If what you're saying is true, that would not put the guilt on him and it would bring the whole thing down to a tragic accident and case of mistaken identity. In the case you mention, he would not responsible for what other people do due to their misconception of some other event.


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> I thought you guys were anti-Government too, now you want to save their buildings? It's a hard time to be a right wing nutjob.



harder to be a left wing nut job apparently, consider slowing down and reading what I wrote. I have no clue how you got the idea that I want to "save" their buildings when I specifically said "* burn down the police station & governors office "*


----------



## Eric

jkcerda said:


> harder to be a left wing nut job apparently, consider slowing down and reading what I wrote. I have no clue how you got the idea that I want to "save" their buildings when I specifically said "* burn down the police station & governors office "*



Oh, so you want the anarchists to deface government property then? Okay, they'll be glad to have you on their side, just leave your assault weapon at home, fair?


----------



## BigMcGuire

My only comment --- seems to me a lot of people are harmed because of collateral damage by these groups. I see where @jkcerda is pointing at - stop harming innocent people in the name of getting back at whoever you disagree with.

I think it's pretty hard to be left or right these days. While I've historically been a republican, that's changed over the last 10 years. I used to be really "for" something, but the older I get the more I find I don't like what I see, on either side. I always laughed at people that said that. Now I'm saying it.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> I am not defending anything. Facts are facts. He might be legally liable - as I explained yesterday - but what you said is patently false and the videos are clear. Point to a single false fact I said.




Thing is, we don't see the first shooting. We don't know what caused him to first fire his weapon, or why the rest of the protesters decided to chase him down. We only see the aftermath of that moment, which serves as the lead up to the 2nd and 3rd shooting.

You need to ask yourself, what happened to necessitate a guy armed with nothing more than a skateboard to chase after a kid with a gun? 

Was he stupid? So aimlessly angry at the injustices of the world that he'd anyone he sees as being associated with them, including an armed 17 year old? 

Was he defending himself? Was he trying to stop someone who shot into a crowd unprovoked, killing a person? 

We don't know what started that fight. We only know the end of it.


----------



## jkcerda

BigMcGuire said:


> My only comment --- seems to me a lot of people are harmed because of collateral damage by these groups. I see where @jkcerda is pointing at - stop harming innocent people in the name of getting back at whoever you disagree with.
> 
> I think it's pretty hard to be left or right these days. While I've historically been a republican, that's changed over the last 10 years. I used to be really "for" something, but the older I get the more I find I don't like what I see, on either side. I always laughed at people that said that. Now I'm saying it.



THANK YOU.


----------



## Renzatic

BigMcGuire said:


> I think it's pretty hard to be left or right these days. While I've historically been a republican, that's changed over the last 10 years. I used to be really "for" something, but the older I get the more I find I don't like what I see, on either side. I always laughed at people that said that. Now I'm saying it.




From the sounds of things, you're a classic conservative. Probably fairly Reaganite in your beliefs.

I'm fairly centrist, slightly right leaning, aligning more with the Rockefeller Republicans, or 80's Democrats.

By today's standards, you're a bleeding heart liberal, and I'm a pinko commie bastard. 

Our politics haven't changed, it's everything else that's moved right on us. Welcome to the shifting of the Overton Window.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Thing is, we don't see the first shooting. We don't know what caused him to first fire his weapon, or why the rest of the protesters decided to chase him down. We only see the aftermath of that moment, which serves as the lead up to the 2nd and 3rd shooting.




Uh, no, we see it. There are two videos that show the first shooting from two angles (one is graphic, it shows the head of the victim and his seizures while he dies).



> You need to ask yourself, what happened to necessitate a guy armed with nothing more than a skateboard to chase after a kid with a gun?




I don't read minds, and we know that individuals in groups don't always make the best decisions. He might have been well intentioned about disarming someone that he perceived as threat.



> Was he defending himself? Was he trying to stop someone who shot into a crowd unprovoked, killing a person?




That's what is difficult about this case in my opinion. Kid is not innocent, but that doesn't make him a) the only party at fault b) someone who was looking for blood to begin with.


----------



## jkcerda

yaxomoxay said:


> Uh, no, we see it. There are two videos that show the first shooting from two angles (one is graphic, it shows the head of the victim and his seizures while he dies).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't read minds, and we know that individuals in groups don't always make the best decisions. He might have been well intentioned about disarming someone that he perceived as threat.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what is difficult about this case in my opinion. Kid is not innocent, but that doesn't make him a) the only party at fault b) someone who was looking for blood to begin with.



B) IS GOING to be argued based on the fact he stupidly crossed state lines to get there, if he does end up with time his mom might need to serve part of the sentence since she took his retard ass there.


----------



## Eric

What I hate to see is another "they're equally responsible" view of this, which would be 100% bullshit. They guy walked into a volatile situation with an exposed assault weapon and shot people, the protesters were not in the wrong, they were protesting. He went there looking for a fight, nothing more and nothing less.

HE was in the wrong here. Not both sides. And the fact that we have to justify the actions with those who are racist is pathetic and shows how far we've fallen under a president who has given these people a platform.


----------



## yaxomoxay

jkcerda said:


> B) IS GOING to be argued based on the fact he stupidly crossed state lines to get there, if he does end up with time his mom might need to serve part of the sentence since she took his retard ass there.




Not enough to prove premeditation. Not nearly enough.


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> What I hate to see is another "they're equally responsible" view of this, which would be 100% bullshit. They guy walked into a volatile situation with an exposed assault weapon and shot people, the protesters were not in the wrong, they were protesting. He went there looking for a fight, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> HE was in the wrong here. Not both sides. And the fact that we have to justify the actions with those who are racist is pathetic and shows how far we've fallen under a president who has given these people a platform.




No one is saying that they are equally responsible.


----------



## SuperMatt

Just an observation: The same people who defended the cops who killed Blake and Pellerin are defending this kid too. And in all 3 cases, the tactic seems to be demonizing the people full of bullet holes.


----------



## Eric

yaxomoxay said:


> No one is saying that they are equally responsible.



That is exactly what jk is saying, are you not reading his posts? (not that anyone would blame you).


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> What I hate to see is another "they're equally responsible" view of this, which would be 100% bullshit. They guy walked into a volatile situation with an exposed assault weapon and shot people, the protesters were not in the wrong, they were protesting. He went there looking for a fight, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> HE was in the wrong here. Not both sides. And the fact that we have to justify the actions with those who are racist is pathetic and shows how far we've fallen under a president who has given these people a platform.



ON one side you have ARSONIST hell bent on destruction, on the other? people willing to stand up to said arsonist, I agree BOTH sides are NOT equally at fault but I guess you are not going to like which side I think is better here.


----------



## jkcerda

protest are like sex, once shit starts to break & burn you need to really decide if you want to continue to be a part of it, because playing a stupid game will earn you a stupid prize.


----------



## yaxomoxay

jkcerda said:


> protest are like sex, once shit starts to break & burn you need to really decide if you want to continue to be a part of it, because playing a stupid game will earn you a stupid prize.




what kind of sex are you involved in?????


----------



## jkcerda

yaxomoxay said:


> what kind of sex are you involved in?????



that will cost you  $3.99 a minute, sheep's costume or use of gimp suit is extra.......


----------



## yaxomoxay

jkcerda said:


> that will cost you  $3.99 a minute, sheep's costume or use of gimp suit is extra.......




My house, your house, or dungeon?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Renzatic said:


> From the sounds of things, you're a classic conservative. Probably fairly Reaganite in your beliefs.
> 
> I'm fairly centrist, slightly right leaning, aligning more with the Rockefeller Republicans, or 80's Democrats.
> 
> By today's standards, you're a bleeding heart liberal, and I'm a pinko commie bastard.
> 
> Our politics haven't changed, it's everything else that's moved right on us. Welcome to the shifting of the Overton Window.




That’s why I think its harder for the older generations. I’m not faulting them here, but I think at a certain age something kicks in where your party is your party and you don’t want to do a lot of research or soul searching to see where they are at currently. But there’s been so many seismic shifts in the political landscape over the last couple decades that you can no longer passively sit there and assume the party or their actions still roughly match your values. If they did some serious research they’d probably feel just as disenfranchised as the younger generations feeling there really is no party for them.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> ON one side you have ARSONIST hell bent on destruction, on the other? people willing to stand up to said arsonist, I agree BOTH sides are NOT equally at fault but I guess you are not going to like which side I think is better here.




One thing I've noticed with these arguments is that people tend to chunk the group into the whole. If there was someone starting fires at some point, then ALL the protesters are out of control arsonists.

The question is, in this specific situation, at this very specific point in time, was there anyone setting fires? Was anyone acting extra rowdy, doing property damage?


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Uh, no, we see it. There are two videos that show the first shooting from two angles (one is graphic, it shows the head of the victim and his seizures while he dies).




I don't want to watch it, so I'll go by what you say here.

Does it show why he pulled the trigger on that guy? If it was justified, then from a legal standpoint, everything that happen thereafter could probably be considered self defense.



yaxomoxay said:


> My house, your house, or dungeon?




Don't trust him. He'll promise you a good time, but bail on you the moment he has your money to go buy Corn Flakes.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> One thing I've noticed with these arguments is that people tend to chunk the group into the whole. If there was someone starting fires at some point, then ALL the protesters are out of control arsonists.
> 
> The question is, in this specific situation, at this very specific point in time, was there anyone setting fires? Was anyone acting extra rowdy, doing property damage?



see post 61. the shootings happened after curfew.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> I don't want to watch it, so I'll go by what you say here.
> Does it show why he pulled the trigger on that guy? If it was justified, then from a legal standpoint, everything that happen thereafter could probably be considered self defense.




I'll try to be as factual as possible:
What you see is Mr. Rittenhouse running, and two individuals (Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. McGinnis) running behind him. One of the two individuals throws something at him (it appears a plastic bag), and a moment later a shot (seemingly not by Mr. Rittenhouse) is heard; Rittenhouse is still running. At that point, Mr. Rosenbaum proceeds running behind Mr. Rittenhouse which at that point shoots four times, hitting Mr. Rosenbaum at least once with a headshot. You then can see an individual (I believe Mr. McGinnis) removing his shirt trying to help the injured individual, and Mr. Rittenhouse seems to be calling 911 and he's heard saying that he killed someone. Then he starts running towards a blockade of cops.
While running towards the cops, an individual approaches him from behind, and tries to punch/slap Mr. Rittenhouse, on his head, causing the loss of Mr. Rittenhouse's hat. Mr. Rittenhouse keeps running for a few feet and then he trips. At that point, one individual yells "get him" and someone else yells "get his ass". While on the ground, one individual approaches Mr. Rittenhouse, who shoots, missing the individual. From behind, an individual with a skateboard approaches Mr. Rittenhouse, and struggles a bit to get the weapon from his hands, failing. During the struggle for the weapon Mr. Rittenhouse shoots again, fatally shooting the individual with the skateboard. At which point another individual proceeds towards Mr. Rittenhouse. There is a bit more struggle, the individual approaching then pulls out a gun, and then he's shot on the shoulder by Mr. Rittenhouse. It seems that the individual loses the handgun at that point. Mr. Rittenhouse then proceeds towards the blockade of cops.



> Don't trust him. He'll promise you a good time, but bail on you the moment he has your money, and go out to buy corn flakes.



... and how do you know that?


----------



## DT

SuperMatt said:


> Everybody in a crowd knows the sounds of different guns?




That's where you touch yourself because that's such a sexy, badass thing to know ...

That's up there with referring to a firearm as model Y, and the mouthbreathers havin' a good ol' chuckle because it's model Z.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> I'll try to be as factual as possible:
> What you see is Mr. Rittenhouse running, and two individuals (Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. McGinnis) running behind him. One of the two individuals throws something at him (it appears a plastic bag), and a moment later a shot (seemingly not by Mr. Rittenhouse) is heard; Rittenhouse is still running. At that point, Mr. Rosenbaum proceeds running behind Mr. Rittenhouse which at that point shoots four times, hitting Mr. Rosenbaum at least once with a headshot. You then can see an individual (I believe Mr. McGinnis) removing his shirt trying to help the injured individual, and Mr. Rittenhouse seems to be calling 911 and he's heard saying that he killed someone. Then he starts running towards a blockade of cops.
> While running towards the cops, an individual approaches him from behind, and tries to punch/slap Mr. Rittenhouse, on his head, causing the loss of Mr. Rittenhouse's hat. Mr. Rittenhouse keeps running for a few feet and then he trips. At that point, one individual yells "get him" and someone else yells "get his ass". While on the ground, one individual approaches Mr. Rittenhouse, who shoots, missing the individual. From behind, an individual with a skateboard approaches Mr. Rittenhouse, and struggles a bit to get the weapon from his hands, failing. During the struggle for the weapon Mr. Rittenhouse shoots again, fatally shooting the individual with the skateboard. At which point another individual proceeds towards Mr. Rittenhouse. There is a bit more struggle, the individual approaching then pulls out a gun, and then he's shot on the shoulder by Mr. Rittenhouse. It seems that the individual loses the handgun at that point. Mr. Rittenhouse then proceeds towards the blockade of cops.




If one of the men chasing him had a gun, and fired the first shot of the fight, then it could be argued he killed in self defense. He won't get murder, but he could still be slapped with manslaughter, depending on what happened before the chase.

Do we know why they were chasing him? Did he antagonize or threaten them in any way?



> ... and how do you know that?




D_T told me.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> see post 61. the shootings happened after curfew.




And there's a gulf of difference between breaking curfew, and burning buildings.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> I'll try to be as factual as possible:
> What you see is Mr. Rittenhouse running, and two individuals (Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. McGinnis) running behind him. One of the two individuals throws something at him (it appears a plastic bag), and a moment later a shot (seemingly not by Mr. Rittenhouse) is heard; Rittenhouse is still running. At that point, Mr. Rosenbaum proceeds running behind Mr. Rittenhouse which at that point shoots four times, hitting Mr. Rosenbaum at least once with a headshot. You then can see an individual (I believe Mr. McGinnis) removing his shirt trying to help the injured individual, and Mr. Rittenhouse seems to be calling 911 and he's heard saying that he killed someone. Then he starts running towards a blockade of cops.
> While running towards the cops, an individual approaches him from behind, and tries to punch/slap Mr. Rittenhouse, on his head, causing the loss of Mr. Rittenhouse's hat. Mr. Rittenhouse keeps running for a few feet and then he trips. At that point, one individual yells "get him" and someone else yells "get his ass". While on the ground, one individual approaches Mr. Rittenhouse, who shoots, missing the individual. From behind, an individual with a skateboard approaches Mr. Rittenhouse, and struggles a bit to get the weapon from his hands, failing. During the struggle for the weapon Mr. Rittenhouse shoots again, fatally shooting the individual with the skateboard. At which point another individual proceeds towards Mr. Rittenhouse. There is a bit more struggle, the individual approaching then pulls out a gun, and then he's shot on the shoulder by Mr. Rittenhouse. It seems that the individual loses the handgun at that point. Mr. Rittenhouse then proceeds towards the blockade of cops.
> 
> 
> ... and how do you know that?




Based on this, it’s hard to tell if the first murder is self-defense. As for the other, if people saw him commit murder and were trying to apprehend him, you cannot call his subsequent shooting self-defense. Imagine a mass-shooter gunning people down and then some other people try to stop him... if he shoots those people, is he now acting in self-defense?

I hope you understand what I mean there....


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> Based on this, it’s hard to tell if the first murder is self-defense. As for the other, if people saw him commit murder and were trying to apprehend him, you cannot call his subsequent shooting self-defense. Imagine a mass-shooter gunning people down and then some other people try to stop him... if he shoots those people, is he now acting in self-defense?
> 
> I hope you understand what I mean there....




Absolutely, I do. This is why this case is difficult. 
If  in the second shooting the other individuals chased him because of the first shooting and they believed that he was a murderer, then what would matter is his intention and the intention behind the first shooting. 
Obviously, an individual can't claim self-defense while committing a felony; this is a given. However, *if *the first shooting was self defense, and other individuals misinterpreted it as a felony murder and chased him, and he reacted with the intent of defending himself after his self defense (*if *upheld), then his would be self-defense as it would be that of those trying to get his weapon out of his hands.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> protest are like sex, once shit starts to break & burn you need to really decide if you want to continue to be a part of it, because playing a stupid game will earn you a stupid prize.




Sounds like you don’t have much experience with either thing....


----------



## jkcerda

yaxomoxay said:


> Absolutely, I do. This is why this case is difficult.
> If  in the second shooting the other individuals chased him because of the first shooting and they believed that he was a murderer, then what would matter is his intention and the intention behind the first shooting.
> Obviously, an individual can't claim self-defense while committing a felony; this is a given. However, *if *the first shooting was self defense, and other individuals misinterpreted it as a felony murder and chased him, and he reacted with the intent of defending himself after his self defense (*if *upheld), then his would be self-defense as it would be that of those trying to get his weapon out of his hands.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Absolutely, I do. This is why this case is difficult.
> If  in the second shooting the other individuals chased him because of the first shooting and they believed that he was a murderer, then what would matter is his intention and the intention behind the first shooting.
> Obviously, an individual can't claim self-defense while committing a felony; this is a given. However, *if *the first shooting was self defense, and other individuals misinterpreted it as a felony murder and chased him, and he reacted with the intent of defending himself after his self defense (*if *upheld), then his would be self-defense as it would be that of those trying to get his weapon out of his hands.




If they rule that way, it would be extremely bad for those trying to stop him. So many mass shootings, they see a guy with an AR-15 shoot somebody, and try to subdue him, get killed, and then their families watch the kid walk without jail time?

Plus the precedent... you might see more vigilantes stirring things up and shooting into crowds if he walks away without a long jail sentence.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> If they rule that way, it would be extremely bad for those trying to stop him. So many mass shootings, they see a guy with an AR-15 shoot somebody, and try to subdue him, get killed, and then their families watch the kid walk without jail time?
> 
> Plus the precedent... you might see more vigilantes stirring things up and shooting into crowds if he walks away without a long jail sentence.




Oh no, he's going to jail. The question is what for. First degree murder, I'd say impossible. Other charges, possible.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


>




This is AFTER he already murdered a guy in the street. These people were trying to subdue somebody they just watched commit murder..

“A person can be heard yelling what sounds like, Beat him up! person can be heard yelling what sounds like, Hey, he shot him !”

If you saw somebody murdering people in the street with an AR-15, you wouldn’t be blamed for trying to take them down.  Once you kill somebody, if a crowd comes at you to stop you from murdering, you don’t get to claim self-defense anymore.


----------



## yaxomoxay

jkcerda said:


>




I didn't realize he actually hit him with the skateboard. What a fucking mess of a case.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> This is AFTER he already *murdered *a guy in the street.




Killed yes. It's certainly homicide.
Murdered... not clear.


----------



## Alli

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> That’s why I think its harder for the older generations.




Hey, watch it now. Us boomers are sensitive.

And I finally figured out why TOP gets so upset when you go off topic. Makes it hella difficult to figure out whether to put a , a , or a .


----------



## yaxomoxay

Alli said:


> Hey, watch it now. Us boomers are sensitive.
> 
> And I finally figured out why TOP gets so upset when you go off topic. Makes it hella difficult to figure out whether to put a , a ❤, or a .




go for happiness and love. Life’s too short for other bullshit.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> This is AFTER he already murdered a guy in the street. These people were trying to subdue somebody they just watched commit murder..
> 
> “A person can be heard yelling what sounds like, Beat him up! person can be heard yelling what sounds like, Hey, he shot him !”
> 
> If you saw somebody murdering people in the street with an AR-15, you wouldn’t be blamed for trying to take them down.  Once you kill somebody, if a crowd comes at you to stop you from murdering, you don’t get to claim self-defense anymore.



IF IF IF IF.............. lets see what happens at the trial.


----------



## DT

Again, we don't know what occured before the first shooting ...

To repeat myself:

_If I were to brandish a firearm, for example, take a handgun, stand out in the street and point it at the neighbors house, you know, to protect it "in case there's an attempted burglary", and the neighbor came running out towards me, also with a visible firearm, and I kill him - that's not self-defense, I was provoking the neighbors response._

If he showed up, made threats, pointed a firearm at people, then took to the streets, someone reacted to HIS provocation, you don't get a "self defense" free pass.


----------



## Renzatic

Someone brought up a very good point just now.

You know how the RNC has been showing shot after shot after shot of cities burning, screaming "THIS IS BIDEN'S AMERICA! IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT? TO SEE AMERICA BURN?"

...as if we're looking at some potential future yet to come to pass, and not what's happening as we speak. It's Trump's America they're pointing at.



jkcerda said:


> IF IF IF IF.............. lets see what happens at the trial.




At the very, very least, it should show us why deputizing randos off the street during these protests is a very bad idea. You don't want to take someone with more balls than brains, and even less training, and say "hey, have at it."



D_T said:


> If he showed up, made threats, pointed a firearm at people, then took to the streets, someone reacted to HIS provocation, you don't get a "self defense" free pass.




Lest we forget, pointing a gun at someone without reason is felony assault. He could've done nothing more than point his gun at someone for calling him mean names, and say "bang bang, commie", and he's guilty of everything that follows.

This is why who did what first is so important in this case. Was he defending themselves from their assault, or were they defending themselves from him? The videos we've seen are all after the fact, so we don't exactly know.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> ...as if we're looking at some potential future yet to come to pass, and not what's happening as we speak. It's Trump's America they're pointing at.




Are you saying that he can he  finally send Feds to the cities (only way he’s authorized to enforce anything), or are we going back to the “by sending feds he’s making things worse”?


----------



## SuperMatt

What Would Jesus Do? Apparently, collect money for a killer:









						Christian site raises over $97K for Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse
					

Despite the allegations against him, a Christian crowdfunding website hosted a fundraising campaign that raised almost $100,000 for Kenosha, Wisconsin shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse.  According to Newsweek, several other popular crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe and Fundly opted to deactivate...




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> What Would Jesus Do? Apparently, collect money for a killer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian site raises over $97K for Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse
> 
> 
> Despite the allegations against him, a Christian crowdfunding website hosted a fundraising campaign that raised almost $100,000 for Kenosha, Wisconsin shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse.  According to Newsweek, several other popular crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe and Fundly opted to deactivate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com



THERE is a gofundme for the other  "peaceful protesters"  that were armed and chasing him......


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Are you saying that he can he  finally send Feds to the cities (only way he’s authorized to enforce anything), or are we going back to the “by sending feds he’s making things worse”?




The point is, he’s saying “look how bad things are now” followed by “vote for me again!” Even if you buy it that it’s the fault of “Democrat cities” - if he hasn’t fixed the perceived problem by now, how will he fix it in the next 4 years?


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Are you saying that he can he find finally send Feds to the cities (only way he’s authorized to enforce anything), or are we going back to the “by sending feds he’s making things worse”?




It's as much Trump's fault as Ferguson and Baltimore were Obama's, which is to say that policy and rhetoric from the White House may have played some small part, but the president isn't directly responsible.

...but if the Republicans are willing to blame Obama for the riots that happened under his watch, and blame a potential future Biden presidency for this, then why not do the same for Trump? He's the man currently in the big seat, after all. To quote his own Twitter page: Leadership: whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> THERE is a gofundme for the other  "peaceful protesters"  that were armed and chasing him......




You mean they are raising funds for the families of the deceased. Do you find it funny to attack their grieving families?


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> The point is, he’s saying “look how bad things are now” followed by “vote for me again!” Even if you buy it that it’s the fault of “Democrat cities” - if he hasn’t fixed the perceived problem by now, how will he fix it in the next 4 years?




Sorry but that’s not how it works.
Anti Trump individuals cause violence, in democrat controlled cities, in which police is told to stand down. Trump offered federal help for months, which was refused. He sent feds to Portland and he was attacked for it as a provoked, feds left, issues in Portland persist.
Either you accept that Trump’s is very limited on what he’s allowed to do, or you accept that this is blackmail (we will go on unless you elect the other guy).


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Leadership: whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.




He’s not the leader of the Cities or the States. He’s the leader of the Federal government. And he’s of the other party (contrary to Obama, however I don’t think he should be blamed for Ferguson).


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Sorry but that’s not how it works.
> Anti Trump individuals cause violence, in democrat controlled cities, in which police is told to stand down. Trump offered federal help for months, which was refused. He sent feds to Portland and he was attacked for it as a provoked, feds left, issues in Portland persist.
> Either you accept that Trump’s is very limited on what he’s allowed to do, or you accept that this is blackmail (we will go on unless you elect the other guy).




Like I said, if he cannot fix it, then why vote for him again?


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> Like I said, if he cannot fix it, then why vote for him again?




Because he’s ready to fix it as soon as a) declares national emergency b) local governments invite the feds c) it’s not the only issue d) it’s blackmail.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> He’s not the leader of the Cities or the States. He’s the leader of the Federal government. And he’s of the other party (contrary to Obama, however I don’t think he should be blamed for Ferguson).




You're missing my point. It's not about actual responsibility, it's about the accusations. If Republicans can blame a Democrat president for whatever happened under his watch, then the same should apply to ALL presidents.

By their logic, this is Trump's America.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> You're missing my point. It's not about actual responsibility, it's about the accusations. If Republicans can blame a Democrat president for whatever happened under his watch, then the same should apply to ALL presidents.
> 
> By their logic, this is Trump's America.




Again, that’s not how it works. The feds offered help, local leaders (of the other party) refused the help (also saying that things were mostly peaceful). Can’t do much more.
So decide: do you want him to do what he think he need to do, or do you want him to wait until he’s invited him?


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Because he’s ready to fix it as soon as a) declares national emergency b) local governments invite the feds c) it’s not the only issue d) it’s blackmail.




D) Come on, you are smart enough to know that this is total horseshit. Millions of Americans marching in BLM protests are part of a massive blackmail scheme targeting the president? That’s even dumber than the “MSM” conspiracy I hear about daily.

Are you forgetting that violence dissipated when Feds left Portland? It didn’t go away completely, and if you know Portland history, they have a long one of protests way before BLM became a thing. But the presence of the feds was gasoline on a fire.

B) Trump has made enemies of Democratic leaders around the country, attacking them constantly. If he wins another 4 years, will these leaders suddenly want to work with him?


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> Again, that’s not how it works. The feds offered help, local leaders (of the other party) refused the help (also saying that things were mostly peaceful). Can’t do much more.
> So decide: do you want him to do what he think he need to do, or do you want him to wait until he’s invited him?




You're still not getting it. To get even more abstract, I'm not trying to blame anyone, I'm bringing rhetoric into question.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> You're still not getting it. To get even more abstract, I'm not trying to blame anyone, I'm bringing rhetoric into question.




so the violence that up to 24 hours ago was denied as real is now Trump’s fault because he says bad things. Gotcha.
(This stuff will make Biden lose an easy election)


----------



## SuperMatt

Renzatic said:


> You're still not getting it. To get even more abstract, I'm not trying to blame anyone, I'm bringing rhetoric into question.




We saw what happened when he sent “help” to Portland. Constant teargas, escalation, shooting of protesters, etc. It was a complete shitshow that dissipated the day after they left. If that is the “help” Trump is offering, who in their right mind would want it?


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> so the violence that up to 24 hours ago was denied as real is now Trump’s fault because he says bad things. Gotcha.
> (This stuff will make Biden lose an easy election)




Jesus, guy. You being obtuse on purpose?


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> It was a complete shitshow that dissipated the day after they left.












						Riot declared outside Portland's City Hall, police make 23 arrests
					

On Tuesday evening, the group gathered at Shemanski Park in the Southwest Portland park blocks before marching.




					www.kgw.com
				












						FBI to focus on violent crime in Portland riots, asks community for tips
					

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – The special agent in charge of the FBI in Portland is asking community members for tips on crimes related to ongoing violence in the city.




					www.kptv.com
				












						For 5th night in a row, police declare riot in Portland after criminal activity at City Hall
					

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – Nearly two dozen adults were arrested and two children were detained in downtown Portland after a riot was declared outside City Hall Tuesday night.




					www.kptv.com
				












						Rioters try to set fire to Portland City Hall during wild night of protests
					

An unlawful assembly was declared, with police urging the crowd via loud speaker to disperse or face arrest.




					nypost.com
				




Soooo dissipated a month ago.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> Jesus, guy. You being obtuse on purpose?




don't ask my wife.


----------



## Renzatic

The interesting thing about the Portland riots is that when the Feds did finally get involved (in a very unofficial, unmarked way, mind), they weren't there in the thick of things, they were operating blocks away from the heaviest action, snatching people up at random.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> You mean they are raising funds for the families of the deceased. Do you find it funny to attack their grieving families?



IF the 17 y/o moron was the one dead your views would be different.  families are free to do as they wish.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> The interesting thing about the Portland riots is that when the Feds did finally get involved (in a very unofficial, unmarked way, mind), they weren't there in the thick of things, they were operating blocks away from the heaviest action, snatching people up at random.




they had to stay within federal grounds range because they were not invited in by the jurisdiction.


----------



## jkcerda

yaxomoxay said:


> they had to stay within federal grounds range because they were not invited in by the jurisdiction.



the Governor at that time had basically tied the cops hands willing to let everything burn including federal offices.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> they had to stay within federal grounds range because they were not invited in by the jurisdiction.




They were operating WELL beyond federal grounds. It was one of the major things that made their presence in Portland so contentious.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> Riot declared outside Portland's City Hall, police make 23 arrests
> 
> 
> On Tuesday evening, the group gathered at Shemanski Park in the Southwest Portland park blocks before marching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kgw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI to focus on violent crime in Portland riots, asks community for tips
> 
> 
> PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – The special agent in charge of the FBI in Portland is asking community members for tips on crimes related to ongoing violence in the city.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kptv.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For 5th night in a row, police declare riot in Portland after criminal activity at City Hall
> 
> 
> PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – Nearly two dozen adults were arrested and two children were detained in downtown Portland after a riot was declared outside City Hall Tuesday night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kptv.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rioters try to set fire to Portland City Hall during wild night of protests
> 
> 
> An unlawful assembly was declared, with police urging the crowd via loud speaker to disperse or face arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo dissipated a month ago.




All those links appear to be about the same event. It was 150 people according to the reports. When the feds were in town, there were over 2000 people. I think a reduction of 90% counts as dissipation. The police can handle 150 people way better than 2000.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Renzatic said:


> They were operating WELL beyond federal grounds. It was one of the major things that made their presence in Portland so contentious.




there were some reports, no actual evidence. Even if they did - which would be wrong for them to do - they could certainly not perform their duties in full because of obvious conflicts in jurisdictions.
Mayor just needs to invite them. It’s not hard, an email works.


----------



## DT

Renzatic said:


> This is why who did what first is so important in this case. Was he defending themselves from their assault, or were they defending themselves from him? The videos we've seen are all after the fact, so we don't exactly know.




That's a huge part of this, though even if it's the former, that's still a bit questionable due to his other circumstances.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> All those links appear to be about the same event. It was 150 people according to the reports. When the feds were in town, there were over 2000 people. I think a reduction of 90% counts as dissipation. The police can handle 150 people way better than 2000.




If you consider 13 certified riots in 80 days good, and God knows how many other things, as “good”...








						Portland protests: 13 events declared riots in more than 80 days, police say
					

Over the course of more than 80 days, police say they have declared a Portland event a riot 13 times, according to a newly-released timeline. Protesters have been calling for racial justice and police reform in the wake George Floyd’s death in the hands of Minneapolis Police officers on May 25...




					katu.com


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> there were some reports, no actual evidence. Even if they did - which would be wrong for them to do - they could certainly not perform their duties in full because of obvious conflicts in jurisdictions.
> Mayor just needs to invite them. It’s not hard, an email works.




Nobody wants Trump’s DHS agents in their cities. Trump is highly unpopular, especially in most big cities. Bringing in his troops only makes things worse.

Evidence? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/portland-federal-legal-jurisdiction-courts.html


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> If you consider 13 certified riots in 80 days good, and God knows how many other things, as “good”...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portland protests: 13 events declared riots in more than 80 days, police say
> 
> 
> Over the course of more than 80 days, police say they have declared a Portland event a riot 13 times, according to a newly-released timeline. Protesters have been calling for racial justice and police reform in the wake George Floyd’s death in the hands of Minneapolis Police officers on May 25...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katu.com




Dissipated is accurate. There is far less trouble, and these riots are much smaller. These idiots are not going away, but the local cops are handling it because they’re not surrounded by thousands angry at Trump’s troops too.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> Nobody wants Trump’s DHS agents in their cities. Trump is highly unpopular, especially in most big cities. Bringing in his troops only makes things worse.
> 
> Evidence? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/portland-federal-legal-jurisdiction-courts.html




oh well, the NYT (notice that it’s “stretching”, which I do agree with).

so let me get this straight. You call what is happening in D states and D cities Trump’s America while at the same time you don’t want him to act with the only federal action he can apply in this case (by being invited). Go figure.


----------



## jkcerda

yaxomoxay said:


> oh well, the NYT (notice that it’s “stretching”, which I do agree with).
> 
> so let me get this straight. You call what is happening in D states and D cities Trump’s America while at the same time you don’t want him to act with the only federal action he can apply in this case (by being invited). Go figure.



they want to have it both ways, it's all trumps fault.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> oh well, the NYT (notice that it’s “stretching”, which I do agree with).
> 
> so let me get this straight. You call what is happening in D states and D cities Trump’s America while at the same time you don’t want him to act with the only federal action he can apply in this case (by being invited). Go figure.




You are not getting it straight. Let me try to express myself better:

Trump claims that the country is on fire and the cities are total anarchy.

Next

Trump says this is how it will be under Biden.

BUT

He is pointing to current events.... under HIS presidency.

I’m pointing out Trump’s contradictory statements.

And I don’t agree that sending federal agents is the only way he can help. Trying to ease tensions instead of pitting police against citizens Could be a start. Instead he attacks BLM calling them treasonous.


----------



## Renzatic

Nothing's creepier than people who randomly capitalize key words.

This is in response to JK's post, by the way.


----------



## Renzatic

Do you wish to visit Tyranny upon me? Upset my Aristotelian ideals of Habitation with your Violence? Is this Aggression not a violation of my Sacred Rights of Autonomy? Am I not Free? Logic.

LOOK AT ME! I'M A LIBERTARIAN!

Every time I read a Libertarian screed, I'm reminded of this Calvin and Hobbes strip.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> You are not getting it straight. Let me try to express myself better:
> 
> Trump claims that the country is on fire and the cities are total anarchy.
> 
> Next
> 
> Trump says this is how it will be under Biden.
> 
> BUT
> 
> He is pointing to current events.... under HIS presidency.
> 
> I’m pointing out Trump’s contradictory statements.




It’s not contradictory. 
The argument is that right now D cities and D states are on fire. They support Biden, not Trump. Biden does not condemn them, Trump does. Trump was/is for sending Feds,Biden wasn’t.
Therefore, by electing Biden, you (not you you) rise the issue to a federal level, having a president who more or less agrees with how things are handled in those D cities and perhaps leaving R cities and R states without the possibility of receiving Fed help, should it be needed and requested because the D president agrees (or, at least tolerates) with is going on and is not condemning it.


----------



## Renzatic

yaxomoxay said:


> It’s not contradictory.
> The argument is that right now D cities and D states are on fire. They support Biden, not Trump. Biden does not condemn them, Trump does. Trump was/is for sending Feds,Biden wasn’t.
> Therefore, by electing Biden, you (not you you) rise the issue to a federal level, having a president who more or less agrees with how things are handled in those D cities and perhaps leaving R cities and R states without the possibility of receiving Fed help, should it be needed and requested because the D president agrees (or, at least tolerates) with is going on and is not condemning it.




If what I've read on social media is true, choosing between Democrats and Republicans will be like having to choose whether to be an extra in Escape from New York, or The Running Man.

Of course, you could vote Libertarian. That's like choosing to live in Society.


----------



## SuperMatt

yaxomoxay said:


> It’s not contradictory.
> The argument is that right now D cities and D states are on fire. They support Biden, not Trump. Biden does not condemn them, Trump does. Trump was/is for sending Feds,Biden wasn’t.
> Therefore, by electing Biden, you (not you you) rise the issue to a federal level, having a president who more or less agrees with how things are handled in those D cities and perhaps leaving R cities and R states without the possibility of receiving Fed help, should it be needed and requested because the D president agrees (or, at least tolerates) with is going on and is not condemning it.




That’s really convoluted. If the overall argument is that Trump can’t do anything about the problem, and Biden won’t do anything about it.... then why does it matter who is elected? By the way, Biden never said he would withhold federal help from cities who request it. That‘s a huge reach being made to avoid looking contradictory.


----------



## yaxomoxay

SuperMatt said:


> That’s really convoluted. If the overall argument is that Trump can’t do anything about the problem, and Biden won’t do anything about it.... then why does it matter who is elected? By the way, Biden never said he would withhold federal help from cities who request it. That‘s a huge reach being made to avoid looking contradictory.




It’s politics man, it’s convoluted by definition! 
Because Trump already acted and said he’s willing to act with those who request it. D are seen as in favor of all of this - or at least mild about it. Someone sent me a video in which even Mr Lemon from CNN acknowledged that it maybe time for the D’s to change the tune about what is going on.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

yaxomoxay said:


> Are you saying that he can he  finally send Feds to the cities (only way he’s authorized to enforce anything), or are we going back to the “by sending feds he’s making things worse”?




I heard an interview recently with a former Portland protester, former because she stopped when they lost the script and it just became mayhem, months ago.  She said before the feds showed up the protests were actually dying down but when the feds were sent in, and as a result of them being sent in, the protests started picking up again.  Honestly I blame politicians, the supposed leaders, for sitting on their hands way too long and as far as I can see they're still just going "Let's just see how this plays out in the streets."  To them its no more dire than an almost contained forrest fire that occasionally has an isolated flareup.  

If BLM had an army of lobbyists handing out million dollar campaign donation checks this shit would have been fixed in a week.  I don't think you need to look any further than this situation to see the government is just deer in the headlights when it comes to helping the common citizens, and in this case I'm talking both black people and law enforcement.     

At this point the protests, other then when there is a new police minority killing (incoming 3, 2,....), have lost their meaning and the real BLM protesters need to condemn all the violence and looting in the strongest terms, and I'm talking "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and "We tortured some folks." strong terms.  Even if they think the fringe doesn't define the movement it doesn't matter because the media is telling the public the fringe defines it and by being silent on the matter you are letting them.


----------



## Alli

yaxomoxay said:


> Because he’s ready to fix it as soon as a) declares national emergency b) local governments invite the feds c) it’s not the only issue d) it’s blackmail.




Didn’t he declare it a national emergency back in May (or thereabouts) so that he could do all the other things he failed to do?


----------



## yaxomoxay

Alli said:


> Didn’t he declare it a national emergency back in May (or thereabouts) so that he could do all the other things he failed to do?




not that I remember. It would be challenged in court in a second. He could probably get away with sending feds in hotspots following a declaration, but he’d need local leaders to invite them.


----------



## Alli

yaxomoxay said:


> not that I remember. It would be challenged in court in a second. He could probably get away with sending feds in hotspots following a declaration, but he’d need local leaders to invite them.




And yet.... Somehow he still managed to do it in Portland and threaten to do it in Chicago.


----------



## Eric

Alli said:


> And yet.... Somehow he still managed to do it in Portland and threaten to do it in Chicago.



In fact, they begged him to stay out. Let's be real here, no way Trump gives two shits about a court challenge or an invitation.


----------



## yaxomoxay

Alli said:


> And yet.... Somehow he still managed to do it in Portland and threaten to do it in Chicago.




lets see what happens this weekend in Chicago









						‘I’ve never had to think about my own safety in this way before’: Shaken by summer looting in affluent neighborhoods, some Chicagoans are moving away.
					

The COVID-19 pandemic and work from home are factors, but some say the chaotic bouts of destruction in recent months have proven to be the last straw.




					www.chicagotribune.com


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> You are not getting it straight. Let me try to express myself better:
> 
> Trump claims that the country is on fire and the cities are total anarchy.
> 
> Next
> 
> Trump says this is how it will be under Biden.
> 
> BUT
> 
> He is pointing to current events.... under HIS presidency.
> 
> I’m pointing out Trump’s contradictory statements.
> 
> And I don’t agree that sending federal agents is the only way he can help. Trying to ease tensions instead of pitting police against citizens Could be a start. Instead he attacks BLM calling them treasonous.



SO all the cities will stop burning once the liberals get what they want? sounds like extortion


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> In fact, they begged him to stay out. Let's be real here, no way Trump gives two shits about a court challenge or an invitation.



FEDERAL PROPERTY, the governor is free to let the rest of the city burn.


----------



## Eric

jkcerda said:


> FEDERAL PROPERTY, the governor is free to let the rest of the city burn.



In most of these cases Trump's police has been ripping people out of the crowds, nowhere near federal property. So you are against that then, right? We really need to work on what you stand for and what you're against.


----------



## jkcerda

ericgtr12 said:


> In most of these cases Trump's police has been ripping people out of the crowds, nowhere near federal property. So you are against that then, right? We really need to work on what you stand for and what you're against.



oh you bet I was against ANY agency pulling people into unmarked vans, yet the libs basically asked for it in this case, the governor had tied the hands of the local police, they had plenty to burn and decided to go full retard on federal property.  sometimes is better to settle for the free nuggets instead of going for the whole chicken.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> SO all the cities will stop burning once the liberals get what they want? sounds like extortion




Yes a group of concerned citizens is extorting the government. That seems feasible. So the protesters are now guilty of blackmail AND extortion according to posts on this thread.

And once again, the cities are not burning.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> oh you bet I was against ANY agency pulling people into unmarked vans, yet the libs basically asked for it in this case, the governor had tied the hands of the local police, they had plenty to burn and decided to go full retard on federal property.  sometimes is better to settle for the free nuggets instead of going for the whole chicken.




Well I guess if they were asking for it, then it’s ok. What an insane point of view. You really have no concept of what was and is happening in Portland.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Yes a group of concerned citizens is extorting the government. That seems feasible. So the protesters are now guilty of blackmail AND extortion according to posts on this thread.
> 
> And once again, the cities are not burning.



Minneapolis 
chicago
portland
L.A
Dallas


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Well I guess if they were asking for it, then it’s ok. What an insane point of view. You really have no concept of what was and is happening in Portland.



play stupid games/ win stupid prizes,  they could have burned as much as the city and LOCAL govt offices as they wanted with no police interference. they decided to step in the one place where trump could intervene.


----------



## SuperMatt

Wow you found 3-month old news articles from the days right after George Floyd’s murder. Congrats! Do you want a cookie?


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Wow you found 2-month old news articles from the days right after George Floyd’s murder. Congrats! Do you want a cookie?



oreo please..  shit is burning right now.  well was until the kid shot a few felons that were among the arsonist.

don't forget the milk.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> oreo please..  shit is burning right now.  well was until the kid shot a few felons that were among the arsonist.




WHERE?


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> WHERE?



one shot in the arm , the other in the head and one in the chest.  17 y/o kid. 
oh the cookies, I am in Kommiefornia.


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> oreo please..  shit is burning right now.  well was until the kid shot a few felons that were among the arsonist.
> 
> don't forget the milk.




Sorry - I found the fires: 









						2,000-acre Cinnabar Fire zero percent contained
					

The 2,000-acre Cinnabar Fire was zero percent contained Saturday morning, as 186 fire personnel continue to work to supress the blaze with the help of five helicopters.  The fire is burning 10 miles east of Stevensville in the Welcome Creek Wilderness. It was first reported Aug. 19 and is...




					nbcmontana.com
				












						Growing fast, White River Fire spreads to almost 9,800 acres on Friday
					

WASCO COUNTY, OR (KPTV) - A wildfire in Oregon in the Mt. Hood National Forest is growing fast.




					www.kptv.com


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> oh you bet I was against ANY agency pulling people into unmarked vans, yet the libs basically asked for it in this case, the governor had tied the hands of the local police, they had plenty to burn and decided to go full retard on federal property.  sometimes is better to settle for the free nuggets instead of going for the whole chicken.




Are the liberals downplaying the breadth and scope of the riots? Yes. Are the conservatives exaggerating it? Oh yes. It's worse than what some people care to admit, but not nearly as bad as some people claim. Our cities aren't "burning."

Though I have to admit, I can't help but have a little fun with the whole affair. I hopped over to one of my local news channels on Facebook, and posted some pictures of bombed out cities in Syria, telling everyone they're shots of Portland. People actually believed it.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> Sorry - I found the fires:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,000-acre Cinnabar Fire zero percent contained
> 
> 
> The 2,000-acre Cinnabar Fire was zero percent contained Saturday morning, as 186 fire personnel continue to work to supress the blaze with the help of five helicopters.  The fire is burning 10 miles east of Stevensville in the Welcome Creek Wilderness. It was first reported Aug. 19 and is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nbcmontana.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing fast, White River Fire spreads to almost 9,800 acres on Friday
> 
> 
> WASCO COUNTY, OR (KPTV) - A wildfire in Oregon in the Mt. Hood National Forest is growing fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kptv.com



here you go








						Officials responded to 37 fires in Kenosha on 2nd night of protests, 1 'nearly leveled several city blocks'
					

Multiple buildings were set on fire overnight in Kenosha during the second night of unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake Sunday night.




					www.fox6now.com


----------



## SuperMatt

jkcerda said:


> here you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials responded to 37 fires in Kenosha on 2nd night of protests, 1 'nearly leveled several city blocks'
> 
> 
> Multiple buildings were set on fire overnight in Kenosha during the second night of unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake Sunday night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fox6now.com




That was one day, one town, and right after they saw the cops shoot a guy in the back.

America’s cities are not burning. The rural areas are due to climate change - wildfires.


----------



## jkcerda

SuperMatt said:


> That was one day, one town, and right after they saw the cops shoot a guy in the back.
> 
> America’s cities are not burning. The rural areas are due to climate change - wildfires.



yeah and the other links were also just one day........... 
oreos & milk.   a few napkins would be nice.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> oreos & milk.   a few napkins would be nice.




You don't need a napkin to eat Oreos and milk. I should know. I just ate some yesterday.

The secret is to not eat like a sloppy bastard.


----------



## chagla

This is the end result of having too many guns in society. Legal or illegal isn't the question. People will leverage them and someone will end up dead. So it shouldn't be easily and readily accessible. The hypocrisy of the right is that they vehemently reject many things in the constitution when it doesn't fit their agenda but fiercely defend gun rights. Give everyone guns, yup that's the solution. 

if there's a brawl, with no guns, sure few folks might end up with bruises but everyone lives. 
another brawl, both or one party has gun, someone ends up dead.


----------



## DT

jkcerda said:


> one shot in the arm , the other in the head and one in the chest.  17 y/o kid.




I can tell you have a little bit of a [little] boner over this ...


----------



## Renzatic

chagla said:


> This is the end result of having too many guns in society.




I don't think it's an issue of too many guns, so much as the attitudes surrounding them. We don't treat them as weapons, but as toys, lifestyle accessories. Something to show off to our friends when we're out at the bar, AND BY GOD NO ONE BETTER TRY AND TRY AND TAKE IT FROM ME, CUZ I WILL KILL THEM DEADER THAN SHIT!

We're not the only country in the developed world with an armed populace, yet we lead them all in mass shootings and overall gun violence. It's not the guns themselves, but the guns enabling a deeper problem in our culture that's the root of the issue.


----------



## SuperMatt

Interesting dichotomy:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298699559942729730/


----------



## Renzatic

SuperMatt said:


> Interesting dichotomy




I'm not gonna play the possible white supremacist angle, but it is weird how when a black kid gets shot, their criminal record immediately gets brought up to explain exactly why he deserved it, yet here's a kid who was committing at least two felonies before he pulled the trigger, yet he's an AMERICAN HERO!


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> I'm not gonna play the possible white supremacist angle, but it is weird how when a black kid gets shot, their criminal record immediately gets brought up to explain exactly why he deserved it, yet here's a kid who was committing at least two felonies before he pulled the trigger, yet he's an AMERICAN HERO!



The ones with criminal records got shot.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> The ones with criminal records got shot.




Which gives everyone else even more of a reason to say they deserved to die.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> Which gives everyone else even more of a reason to say they deserved to die.



I swear the right would carve the kids face in mt Rushmore if they could. 
I do love the million memes coming out of it.  Wonder if his stupid mom realizes just how bad she fucked no her sons life?


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> Wonder if his stupid mom realizes just how bad she fucked no her sons life?




Ann Coulter says he's gonna be president some day.


----------



## jkcerda

Legal Team for Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse Releases Full Statement
					

The legal team for Kyle Rittenhouse has released a statement regarding his defense.




					thelibertarianrepublic.com


----------



## Renzatic

Pretty standard. Talks up his good deeds, and throws in some political angst for cookie points.


----------



## SuperMatt

Gotta love the lawyers’ spin, and I loved this quote:



> Kyle now has the best legal representation in the country.




They sure are modest!


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> Pretty standard. Talks up his good deeds, and throws in some political angst for cookie points.



Some of it backed up by the source Matt posted.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> Some of it backed up by the source Matt posted.




Hey may very well have been out there helping people. It's solid in that it shows he didn't go to the protests with malicious intent, making it more difficult to prove a murder case, but it still may not be enough to save him from a manslaughter charge.

That wouldn't be too difficult to do, since...

A. He's underaged, untrained to handle the situation he willingly put himself into, and isn't legally entitled to open carry a firearm.
B. He ran from the scene of a shooting he was involved in, which is illegal in and of itself. This make him responsible for everything that came thereafter, since the last two victims likely saw him as a murderer fleeing the scene of a crime, and tried to stop him.

I'm expecting him to get 3 to 5 in a state pen after spending a year in juvie. No one will be happy with the outcome, since liberals see him as an agitator and murderer, and conservatives see him as a hero being railroaded by the deep state.


----------



## Renzatic

This made me think of something.

Isn't it weird that liberals always come to the defense to protest the innocence of someone who's been shot, and conservatives are always defending those who shoot other people?

It shows a marked difference in mindset. It's so prevalent, you could ask someone their opinion about, say, Ahmed Arbery, and you'll just about be guaranteed to know exactly how they vote depending on how they respond.


----------



## jkcerda

Renzatic said:


> This made me think of something.
> 
> Isn't it weird that liberals always come to the defense to protest the innocence of someone who's been shot, and conservatives are always defending those who shoot other people?
> 
> It shows a marked difference in mindset.



That depends on the color of the shooter and those shot. Example later


----------



## Lostngone

It all depends on what type of protest you were talking about? If it is an armed protest then I would say that would probably be a good idea.


----------



## Huntn

Excellent article regarding Rittenhouse, the Kenosha shooter. Three people died that night because of militia with guns, and this ass**** were there doing their vigilante stick. If we can’t keep armed assholes out of protests let’s just arm the protesters for their self defense.   He should be hammered, he was there to kill someone.

He was being chased to be apprehended after he murdered a protestor.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...enhouse-shoot-protest-jacob-blake/5675987002/





The guy on the left.​


----------

