17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

the prosecution was inept at best
I believe it is pretty well established that in every jurisdiction, the DA and the Chief of Police [redacted] each other. In this case, the police in general wanted Zimmerhouse to walk, so they leaned heavily on the prosecutor to screw this up. I cannot offer any evidence that this is the case, other than the long history of [redacted] between those two groups.
 
I am not sure what world you live in where somebody walking into the middle of a riot with an AR-15 is not immediately an aggressor. Oh wait, it’s the USA. I realise that things are changing quickly in the US and the new normal is absurd to me, but that is not normal behaviour in most third world shitholes, never mind in civilised nations. Instead of oohing and aaahing over the intricacies and technicalities of this case, some of you need to take a good and fucking long deep look into yourselves and into your country. Is this really the world you want to live in? It‘s barely recognisable from anarchy.

A riot/protest of this nature is inherently volatile. I'm sure there were people at that protest who were looking for a fight and an excuse to smash and burn things. Likewise, Kyle may have been looking for an excuse to fire his weapon. It doesn't mean that anyone who went there loses their right to self-defense, so yes, the particulars do matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A riot/protest of this nature is inherently volatile. I'm sure there were people at that protest who were looking for a fight and an excuse to smash and burn things. Likewise, Kyle may have been looking for an excuse to fire his weapon. It doesn't mean that anyone who went there loses their right to self-defense, so yes, the particulars do matter.
True.

What is the issue the prosecutor was supposed to make, is how "self defense" is used.

The comparisons with Zimmerman are because in both situations the subjects went into a situation ( Zimmerman's case was more blatant since he continued to pursue after being told to leave it to the police ), it turned out real life is much different than movies & videogames, and suddenly the situations they intentionally entered required "self defense".

"Self defense" in each situation is the citizen / non professional version of "I was afraid for my life" that has become the universal "get out of jail free" card for police. The problem of course is that "self defense" tends to work selectively dependent on the person claiming it, as it's been noted with Marissa Alexander. In each case the courts' seem to have different levels of vigor in pursuing a guilty plea.
 
Not picking on you here for sure, but when an illegal commits a crime and the right says "well if he wasn't here........" we get trashed.

One side seems to be saying "a minor shouldn't have entered dangerous situation armed with a weapon he wasn't old enough to own".

The other side seems to be saying "none of these people should be in this country because a few of them cause problems".

I'm not sure I'm seeing the same connection you are between those two things.
 
I haven’t read the entire thread, but here are my thoughts.

What kind of parent brings their child to a violent area so their child can “protect” and offer “medical aid”? Would any of you take the risk of placing your own child in harm’s way and bring them to a protest knowing full well the past few days were violent? Would any of you allow your minor child to own a gun? Also, if he was there for medical aid, why did he need a weapon? Do firefighters and other EMT carry AR-15 and other weapons…?

It’s like me bringing my child (if I had one) across state lines to New Hampshire to “protect” a car dealership and offer “medical aid” what a dumbass I would be. Why wasn’t reckless endangerment charges brought against the mother?

I believe he was looking for an excuse to use his gun and he got his wish. Sure it WAS self defense, but if he did what most teenagers do and played video games, smoked pot, went on a hike or hung out with his girlfriend, he wouldn’t be looking for trouble.

Also, can someone help me here.. why are we defending car dealerships or anything that isn’t ours? If there was a riot or protest near my work place or my old hardware store I worked at, I’m getting the heck out. Why would I put my life on the line over silly cars or merchandise? They have insurance policies for a reason, it even covers lost wages.

I’d go as far to say that if there was a protest near my house that I felt could turn violent, I’m grabbing my dog, and all important sentimental non replaceable items and getting out. I have home owner’s insurance that covers my home and will pay for a hotel while the house is being rebuilt. Why would I put myself anywhere near danger if I don’t have to do so? Not worth my life protecting replaceable objects.
 
Last edited:
One side seems to be saying "a minor shouldn't have entered dangerous situation armed with a weapon he wasn't old enough to own".

The other side seems to be saying "none of these people should be in this country because a few of them cause problems".

I'm not sure I'm seeing the same connection you are between those two things.
A minor shouldn’t have been driven to a dangerous situation PERIOD! Armed or unarmed is asking for trouble. What a stupid excuse of a mother.
 
A minor shouldn’t have been driven to a dangerous situation PERIOD! Armed or unarmed is asking for trouble. What a stupid excuse of a mother.

Provide sources, and I do mean multiple, since you said ”much” of the reporting was incorrect.

Well here is a perfect example.

Kyle's mother DID NOT DRIVE HIM TO KENOSHA. He went the day before and stayed the night with a friend.

 
Well here is a perfect example.

Kyle's mother DID NOT DRIVE HIM TO KENOSHA. He went the day before and stayed the night with a friend.

That was a Facebook post, not a news article. I don’t think most people associate “reporting” with a Facebook meme. The “MSM” actually reported the story correctly. Here’s a pic of the “reporting” you’re talking about...

1637365664615.jpeg


Yeah, that’s not “reporting” no matter how you slice it. Facebook is infamous for misinformation… this is yet another example.

 
This was NEVER truly about the kid.

The judge laid that out early, it was about sending a message. It was about what is the order of things. From those being shot can't be labelled victims, but those on the streets can be 'rioters'. The judges reactions solely to the prosecutors. The judge deciding on what charges can be applied, :oops: especially the dropped weapon charge. His behavior with his phone, that you know he would have railed on the prosecutors doing the same thing. Asian food. Having the court applaud a witness on Veteran's day for the defense, that was established earlier in the trial as a veteran. The judge's railing on the use of camera's in court, solely because his behavior became a focal point earning criticism Acting on the allegations of what MSNBC supposedly did, but he admittedly didn't know for sure & the police hadn't concluded yet. Watching the groups that championed & embraced the kid for actions they'd want any other kid shot on sight.

The kid became a side thought at one point & was nothing more than the title of a show to remind us how things work. There is an order to things, and the law ( in this judge's case ) would like to remind you how things REALLY work.

😑

That was some literal 'thumb on scale' behavior on display, but a helpful reminder of how justice & the courts work for SOME.
That was a mistrial if ever I saw one. It was reported that a mistrial was called for twice and no intervention. That's kind of astounding. This verdict was not only a vindication of white supremacy, but of extreme vigilantism.

Now you might think next time, I'll just bring my gun too as it seems like the guy with the gun can scream self defense and get a pass, except you have to consider the judge and jury. If both guys have guns then it gets complicated, yet if you had this judge and were there supporting BLM during a protest, you'd be the one he'd be hammering on. So much for neutrality before the law. I even think that in the case of 12 guns, once this jury figured out who was supporting Black Live Matters vs Blue Live Matters, Black would taken the hit as usual. :mad:
 
That was a Facebook post, not a news article. I don’t think most people associate “reporting” with a Facebook meme. The “MSM” actually reported the story correctly. Here’s a pic of the “reporting” you’re talking about...

View attachment 9899

Yeah, that’s not “reporting” no matter how you slice it. Facebook is infamous for misinformation… this is yet another example.

I agree. But yet here it is being presented as fact by @ouimetnick. Not blaming them as this has been circulating for quite some time. But where did it originate? Was it part of a news story that was then "corrected" on the back page after headlining above the fold? I honestly don't know.

Here is an article on it being shared over 17,000 times on Twitter.


So even though it may not have been the "news" media, it was media and ended up being part of the narrative, which was my point. Much of what was circulating was misinformation, so if that is all you read, then yes you were probably surprised by the verdict.
 
Is there any evidence that the 3 guys who were shot were there to support BLM or simply there as an excuse to cause trouble?
 
Well, I stand corrected, guess that's why it was "glossed over" (because it never happened).. Thanks @Herdfan for the correction.
Why did Kyle drive when he didn't have a driver's license?

“So even though you didn’t have a driver’s license, you drove from your home in Antioch to the RecPlex to work that day?” Binger asked.

“Yes, to be able to get to work,” he replied.

So as long as it's work related, I can break laws???:unsure: Still doesn't excuse why he and his buddy felt entitled to defend some car dealership they didn't own or work for. Was his ego that large, or was he looking for trouble. Looking for trouble isn't a crime in of itself, but he definitely had bad intentions. Do paramedics and firefighters carry AR-15s for "medical" reasons? I'm not sure what kind of relationship he had with his parents, but my folks would have drove and taken me home or called the police if they knew what I was up to with my friend..
 
I agree. But yet here it is being presented as fact by @ouimetnick. Not blaming them as this has been circulating for quite some time. But where did it originate? Was it part of a news story that was then "corrected" on the back page after headlining above the fold? I honestly don't know.

Here is an article on it being shared over 17,000 times on Twitter.


So even though it may not have been the "news" media, it was media and ended up being part of the narrative, which was my point. Much of what was circulating was misinformation, so if that is all you read, then yes you were probably surprised by the verdict.
One story/meme, widely shared on Facebook and Twitter… is your example of “much of the reporting” being inaccurate.

Facebook, instagram, Twitter posts are not “reporting.” All the railing against the ”MSM” by the right is disastrous, and this is an example of why. Now you’ve got people that consider something to be “reporting” if it’s a tweet or Instagram post with a lot of likes or re-tweets or whatever? The MSM got this RIGHT. It’s random idiots on social media that got it wrong. If you wanted an argument for why actual journalism is important, this is a perfect example.

So, quit 💩-ing on the MSM; it looks like most news organizations got this right. They actually work to distribute accurate information.
 
One story/meme, widely shared on Facebook and Twitter… is your example of “much of the reporting” being inaccurate.

Facebook, instagram, Twitter posts are not “reporting.” All the railing against the ”MSM” by the right is disastrous, and this is an example of why. Now you’ve got people that consider something to be “reporting” if it’s a tweet or Instagram post with a lot of likes or re-tweets or whatever? The MSM got this RIGHT. It’s random idiots on social media that got it wrong. If you wanted an argument for why actual journalism is important, this is a perfect example.

So, quit 💩-ing on the MSM; it looks like most news organizations got this right. They actually work to distribute accurate information.

You may be right.

So can I :poop: on the Democratic Representative from CA who said 1) His mother drove him and 2) drove him with the gun in an interview with Jake Tapper on November 14th. So not just Social Media spewing misinformation, but an elected Congresswoman.

The tape cuts off so I have no idea if Tapper corrects her or lets it stand. Tapper is usually pretty good about facts so I hope he did.

 
Back
Top