1 1
turtlespeed

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

Recommended Posts

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

Right. 

Suuuuuuure they were.

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

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

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

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

And if they will be used in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

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

Right. 

Suuuuuuure they were.

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

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

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

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

And if they will be used in court.

I agree.

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I agree.

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

You've applauded him for being out there with a gun, said that it was a good and moral thing, and said that everyone else should be doing it too.

Funny way to demonstrate that you don't approve of him being in possession of a gun he wasn't legally allowed to have.

Quote

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

No, it's fucking stupid. He had no training, no plan, and no fall back but to shoot people with real bullets if merely threatening them with his rifle didn't work. That one of this group of Rambo wannabes ended up murdering people was a foregone conclusion. That you are doubling down on promoting this idiocy even after the murders have started is unfathomable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I agree.

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

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

The best way this little boy could have helped is to stay at home and let the police do their jobs. I am genuinely surprised to see how strongly you support the vigilante”s. I know Ron is completely open about his support. It is rare to see you unequivocally standing behind something. And it’s attitudes like yours that justify vigilante actions that make me believe the USA could face serious unrest if Trump loses and he calls if you to arms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jakee said:

No, it's fucking stupid. He had no training, no plan, and no fall back but to shoot people with real bullets if merely threatening them with his rifle didn't work... 

You forgot 'no authority.'

He had none at all. No police powers. No arrest powers. Nothing but the idea of 'citizen's arrest', which is as misunderstood and over-assumed (if that's a word - people assume that it's much broader than it really is) as self defense is.

Wisconsin Castle doctrine is not very broad. For businesses, the 'duty to retreat' doesn't apply to the owner or operator of the business. 
For example, a convenience store owner, manager or clerk don't have a duty to retreat in the face of an armed criminal. But a customer does. 

For these vigilantes to think they could 'stand their ground' against protesters and subsequently claim 'self defense' is, as you put it, 'fucking stupid'. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You forgot 'no authority.'

He had none at all. No police powers. No arrest powers. Nothing but the idea of 'citizen's arrest', which is as misunderstood and over-assumed (if that's a word - people assume that it's much broader than it really is) as self defense is.

Wisconsin Castle doctrine is not very broad. For businesses, the 'duty to retreat' doesn't apply to the owner or operator of the business. 
For example, a convenience store owner, manager or clerk don't have a duty to retreat in the face of an armed criminal. But a customer does. 

For these vigilantes to think they could 'stand their ground' against protesters and subsequently claim 'self defense' is, as you put it, 'fucking stupid'. 

I was talking to a cop in Indiana one day and brought up the topic of "citizens arrest", because I was curious what it really meant.  He stated that since a citizen has no right to pull any kind of weapon in a "citizens arrest" situation, effectively the only thing you could legally do is put the perp in a bear hug (and be careful not to cause harm) until police arrive. If you harm them, it becomes assault & battery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you're a random tooled up white guy patrolling the streets with an assault rifle and tactical gear the cops are happy to have you around and grateful for the help. If you're a female paramedic with a med kit you're clearly dangerous and untrustworthy and must be violently removed from the scene.

 

In 30 years time this descent into officially sanctioned armed factionalism is what the history classes will be teaching about the Trump presidency.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jakee said:

He had no training, no plan, and no fall back but to shoot people with real bullets if merely threatening them with his rifle didn't work.

Well in the other thread Turtle thinks you can be impartial with no legal or scientific training, so it's no wonder he thinks anyone can be police with no training and no plan.

In the other thread I sort of defended his reasoning, but in this case I think he's actually crossed the line into advocating violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, nigel99 said:

The best way this little boy could have helped is to stay at home and let the police do their jobs. I am genuinely surprised to see how strongly you support the vigilante”s. I know Ron is completely open about his support. It is rare to see you unequivocally standing behind something. And it’s attitudes like yours that justify vigilante actions that make me believe the USA could face serious unrest if Trump loses and he calls if you to arms. 

Somebody has to do the protecting. There is way way WAY too much crime being committed and WAY too many lives being ruined by these deplorable looters and rioters.

I don't understand how anyone can sit by and be OK with this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, billvon said:

First the vandals, then the murderer.

By vandals, are you including the arsonists?

 

You don't suddenly give up your right to self defense because you are underage and have a rifle you shouldn't.

He needs to face the judge, but not for murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Well in the other thread Turtle thinks you can be impartial with no legal or scientific training, so it's no wonder he thinks anyone can be police with no training and no plan.

In the other thread I sort of defended his reasoning, but in this case I think he's actually crossed the line into advocating violence.

I will condemn any act of violence that the protectors of the property instigate.

(By the way, extinguishing a dumpster fire is not an instigation.)

I will condemn every act of violence that the looters and rioters perpetrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Somebody has to do the protecting. There is way way WAY too much crime being committed and WAY too many lives being ruined by these deplorable looters and rioters.

How many lives did Rittenberg just ruin with his criminal actions? How many lives directly and indirectly changed forever by his violence? Did anyone he shot even participate in any form of vandalism? You have no idea, yet you applaud him for confronting them and defend him for shooting them. 
 

43 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't understand how anyone can sit by and be OK with this.

Put away your straw man. Not approving of unsanctioned, armed vigilantes who kill people in the street is not the same as being ok with arson.
 

20 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

What authority do the rioters have to start dumpster fires, and destroy businesses?

none. That’s why it’s illegal, wrong and damaging to society. Just like Rittenhouse and people like him are criminals who are damaging society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You don't suddenly give up your right to self defense because you are underage and have a rifle you shouldn't.

He needs to face the judge, but not for murder.

Actually, in Wisconsin you do. Through his stupid and irresponsible actions he put himself in the position where self defence laws do not apply, and he made himself a murderer.

I don’t understand how you can be ok with those murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Somebody has to do the protecting.

Protecting does not equal shooting people in the back.

Quote

You don't suddenly give up your right to self defense because you are underage and have a rifle you shouldn't.

Yes, you do.  If you shoot someone during the commission of a crime you can't claim self defense.

Quote

I will condemn every act of violence that the looters and rioters perpetrate.

Once you condemn every act of murder a criminal performs, and not give him a break because he's white and supports your candidate, we might take you seriously.  Until then, support of murderers while condemning rioting is the height of hypocrisy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

...Once you condemn every act of murder a criminal performs, and not give him a break because he's white and supports your candidate, we might take you seriously.  Until then, support of murderers while condemning rioting is the height of hypocrisy.

Yes, meanwhile trump is conducting a press conference he accuses a reporter "Your side just killed one of my supporters in Portland".

Is there any wonder that violence is escalating. Using the bully pulpit of the WH trump lies, tries and convicts without any evidence and points the finger at another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

By vandals, are you including the arsonists?

 

You don't suddenly give up your right to self defense because you are underage and have a rifle you shouldn't.

He needs to face the judge, but not for murder.

He killed someone while in the commission of a crime (illegally carrying a firearm).  That looks like murder to me.

Apparently at least one death will be charged as first-degree intentional homicide, which carries a mandatory life sentence. The case could resolve in a lesser charge through plea bargaining. Rittenhouse could face a reckless homicide charge in the second death that, according to video, appears to be in reaction to an attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Somebody has to do the protecting. There is way way WAY too much crime being committed and WAY too many lives being ruined by these deplorable looters and rioters.

I don't understand how anyone can sit by and be OK with this.

So raging left-wing CNN has a theory why Trump is trying to inflame more violence.

Quoting: "For Donald Trump's America-on-fire campaign strategy to work, he needs violence to boil in cities right up until Election Day, or at least for enough voters to believe the nation is spiraling into an abyss of chaos and savagery."

 

Looking at Turtle's posts here, it's working.

12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I will condemn any act of violence that the protectors of the property instigate.

(By the way, extinguishing a dumpster fire is not an instigation.)

I will condemn every act of violence that the looters and rioters perpetrate.

This is very hypocritical. You practically called for people out of state to converge on Kenosha with firearms despite the killings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, olofscience said:

This is very hypocritical. You practically called for people out of state to converge on Kenosha with firearms despite the killings.

Yep, he will only condemn the people with guns who travelled to Kenosha specifically so they could confront protestors if they attack a protestor completely out of the blue with no provocation. He’ll condemn any of the protesters - all of whom he lumps in with arsonists and vandals - for anything they do even in self defence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, billvon said:
Quote

You don't suddenly give up your right to self defense because you are underage and have a rifle you shouldn't.

Yes, you do.  If you shoot someone during the commission of a crime you can't claim self defense.

shouldn't that be "during the commission of a felony?"

The weapons charge in this case appears to be a misdemeanor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

shouldn't that be "during the commission of a felony?"

The weapons charge in this case appears to be a misdemeanor.

Wisconsin uses the terms criminal activity and unlawful conduct. They do not specify felony anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jakee said:

Wisconsin uses the terms criminal activity and unlawful conduct. They do not specify felony anywhere.

While the general principles of legal self defense are pretty well established, the details vary from state to state. 

 I live in Wisconsin and am very familiar with the specifics.

The kid has really failed to meet a couple of the requirements for the claim of self defense.

Keep in mind that the initial reports had one of the charges (that seems to have either been dropped or was never filed in the first place) that was 'unlawful flight'. 
Once he murdered the first guy, any claim of self defense for the subsequent shootings went right out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1