1 1
turtlespeed

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

Recommended Posts

(edited)
58 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:


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

What? The fact that he purposely traveled to somewhere that he had no reason to be, armed, with the deliberate intention of confronting a group of protesters means that when he inevitably shot someone he can't claim self defense? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.

 

The second he left his home with that plan it was only ever going to end up with him using that gun.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jakee said:
3 hours 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.

If true, that's absurd.  I think I'd much rather it be a felony for the kid to cross state lines and roam the streets illegally with a firearm, then maybe he wouldn't have even been there.

I mean shit,  the cops came to my apartment for loud music when I was in college and arrested me for drinking on my 20th birthday - a misdemeanor.  Apparently this is like the same thing.

Share this post


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

If true, that's absurd.  I think I'd much rather it be a felony for the kid to cross state lines and roam the streets illegally with a firearm, then maybe he wouldn't have even been there.

I mean shit,  the cops came to my apartment for loud music when I was in college and arrested me for drinking on my 20th birthday - a misdemeanor.  Apparently this is like the same thing.

But as described in Yoinks post above, intentionally provoking a confrontation also removes the option of deadly force self defence whether any crime was being committed or not, so in that sense it’s a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 4:54 PM, billvon said:

Protecting does not equal shooting people in the back.

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

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.

First of all, you must be under some illusion that I support  Kyle shooting anyone, or even support that he was in possession of a firearm he was not supposed to have.  I am not in support of either of those things.

I - AM - however, in support of the community of citizens coming together and protecting the property of those that cannot, will not, or, are incapable of protecting on their own. 

You also must be under the illusion that the people chasing him meant no harm, even though their actions absolutely prove otherwise.  Someone fired a handgun before Rittenhouse fired his rifle.

They also proved that they were not peaceful by clubbing him.  That is a peaceful way to explain that what you are doing is wrong.

They proved they were criminals and arsonists by setting the dumpster fire, that Rittenhouse extinguished, and which escalated the issue and prompted the forthcoming violence.

Perhaps, maybe the "victims" should have not been chasing him, and let the police deal with it, as you are saying the police should be dealing with the arsonists, looters, and rioters, that were setting fires and destroying the businesses, and property.

You can't have it both ways.

It almost seems like you are on the criminal's side.  Is that true?

How would you protect what is yours in that situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, Coreece said:

If true, that's absurd.  I think I'd much rather it be a felony for the kid to cross state lines and roam the streets illegally with a firearm, then maybe he wouldn't have even been there.

I mean shit,  the cops came to my apartment for loud music when I was in college and arrested me for drinking on my 20th birthday - a misdemeanor.  Apparently this is like the same thing.

I'm not sure he crossed state lines with the weapon.

His Rittenhouse's) drive was a shorter drive than Rosenbaum's to get to where he was.

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 6:24 PM, kallend said:

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.

What it looks like to you, is not what it looks like to a lot of other people, and must be sorted out by lawyers and counsel.

What you see, and what I see, are different things.

Should rittenhouse have stayed home?  I say that he should have stayed home just as much as the rioters and looters that he was trying to protect against should have stayed home? 

It seems like this bunch here considers it a right to pillage, loot, and riot.  Even more than one has the right to protect from such things.

Share this post


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

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.

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

Did you know that it was a longer journey for Rosembaum to get from home to the riot than it was for Rittenhouse?

Share this post


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

I'm not sure he crossed state lines with the weapon.

His Rittenhouse's) drive was a shorter drive than Rosenbaum's to get to where he was.

That crossed my mind as well.  I didn't bother looking into this much - just watched the video and skimmed a coupe articles.  I'm not wasting anymore time arguing different angles and playing lawyer on this one.  The court of public opinion will do it's thing, and the court of law will do it's thing.

Share this post


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

That crossed my mind as well.  I didn't bother looking into this much - just watched the video and skimmed a coupe articles.  I'm not wasting anymore time arguing different angles and playing lawyer on this one.  The court of public opinion will do it's thing, and the court of law will do it's thing.

Yup.

The only issue is when politics plays with justice. Like the governor of wherever saying he’d pardon the couple who were brandishing weapons at protestors despite any court finding.

That’s not the court of law doing it’s thing. I could totally see this going the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, yoink said:

Yup.

The only issue is when politics plays with justice. Like the governor of wherever saying he’d pardon the couple who were brandishing weapons at protestors despite any court finding.

That’s not the court of law doing it’s thing. I could totally see this going the same way.

Another is when they rush to issue charges.  Then the DA has to fill in blanks, with, or without evidence, and have withheld evidence when its damaging to their case.

Share this post


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

First of all, you must be under some illusion that I support  Kyle shooting anyone, or even support that he was in possession of a firearm he was not supposed to have.  I am not in support of either of those things.

Bullshit. You applauded him for being there doing what he was doing, you said everyone should be there doing what he was doing, and you've said the shootings were only in self defence and were the fault of the people who were shot. In what way do you not support him shooting people?

Quote

You also must be under the illusion that the people chasing him meant no harm, even though their actions absolutely prove otherwise.  Someone fired a handgun before Rittenhouse fired his rifle.

Says who? I have not seen any indication of that. Eyewitnesses have said the catalyst for the first shooting was Rittenhouse holding a black man at gunpoint who was trying to get into his own car because Rittenhouse assumed he was trying to steal it. The man who confronted him him about it - the first man he murdered - was unarmed.

This chain of events is all Rittenhouse's fault, is a predictable consequence of untrained fantasist wannabe's inserting themselves into tense situations and will keep happening if more people head out thre to do what you want them to do.

Quote

They also proved that they were not peaceful by clubbing him.  That is a peaceful way to explain that what you are doing is wrong.

When trying to stop a heavily armed man who has just murdered someone? Sure, of course you believe that when trying to stop a murderer with an assault rifle you would not use the only makeshift weapon at your disposal. You're strong enough to take on 6 cops at once and save George Floyds life, I'm sure you could have just strolled up to Rittenhouse and taken his rifle away with one arm tied behind your back. 

Quote

They proved they were criminals and arsonists by setting the dumpster fire, that Rittenhouse extinguished, and which escalated the issue and prompted the forthcoming violence.

WHO proved they were criminals and arsonists? Was anyone that Rittnhouse shot involved in that crime and arson or are you just smearing their memories in order to protect your political stance? 

Your reasoning is that a dumpster fire was set in Kenosha, therefore everyone out in Kenosha that night was an arsonist, therefore it was cool for Rittenhouse to shoot whoever. It's abhorrent.

Consider this - while Rittenhouse was running around lying about being an EMT, Grosskreutz was an actual EMT who had been treating numerous people throughout the night and who never shot anyone. Yet you slander him as a violent looting arsonist who Rittenhouse was totally ok to shoot. Just think, he's a real person. It's despicable the lengths you are going to to dehumanise him and the other victims - with zero evidence - as nothing more than a pack of arsonists and looters just so you can defend your precious right wing militia.

Quote

Perhaps, maybe the "victims" should have not been chasing him, and let the police deal with it, as you are saying the police should be dealing with the arsonists, looters, and rioters, that were setting fires and destroying the businesses, and property.

The police had already publicly and visibly abdicated their responsibility to deal with the armed right wing mobs roaming Kenosha. Many protesters had seen the police not just allowing the mobs to stay in curfewed areas while they were moved on, but thanking them and actively aiding them. Add to that the mob the Rittenhouse was in bragging that police were funnelling protestors towards them to 'deal with' and you can understand why they may not have felt the police would deal with him.

And oh yeah I forgot... they were right. The police didn't deal with him. A running man with a rifle after multiple gunshots had been heard, followed by people shouting that he had shot someone and they just let him straight through. Free and clear to do whatever else he wanted that night. That's how the police dealt with the most serious crime which occurred that night.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Bullshit. ...

This chain of events is all Rittenhouse's fault, is a predictable consequence of untrained fantasist wannabe's inserting themselves into tense situations and will keep happening if more people head out thre to do what you want them to do.

.... The police didn't deal with him. A running man with a rifle after multiple gunshots had been heard, followed by people shouting that he had shot someone and they just let him straight through. Free and clear to do whatever else he wanted that night. That's how the police dealt with the most serious crime which occurred that night.

Even the "leader" of the militia that sent out the call for armed people to converge there has now said he should not have come. Most likely because he's received legal advice that he could have a personal liability for what's transpired from the families of those killed.

Share this post


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

Should rittenhouse have stayed home?  I say that he should have stayed home just as much as the rioters and looters that he was trying to protect against should have stayed home? 

No you don’t. That’s a barefaced lie. You said that Rittenhouse should have been out and that everyone else should be copying him. 
 

14 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

It seems like this bunch here considers it a right to pillage, loot, and riot.  Even more than one has the right to protect from such things.

Again, that’s utter bollocks. When you have to continually lie to defend your point you might start thinking your point is bad. The right to riot has nothing to do with the right to be a vigilante and to kill people after provoking armed confrontation. 
 

It is also irrelevant, since you have absolutely no evidence that anyone he shot was a pillager, looter or an arsonist. Despite your constant efforts to tar them with that brush you actually have no idea if they had been doing anything more than being out on the streets in protest. That’s the problem with Rittenhouse and that’s the problem with the rest of his armed mob.

Share this post


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

No you don’t. That’s a barefaced lie. You said that Rittenhouse should have been out and that everyone else should be copying him. 
 

Again, that’s utter bollocks. When you have to continually lie to defend your point you might start thinking your point is bad. The right to riot has nothing to do with the right to be a vigilante and to kill people after provoking armed confrontation. 
 

It is also irrelevant, since you have absolutely no evidence that anyone he shot was a pillager, looter or an arsonist. Despite your constant efforts to tar them with that brush you actually have no idea if they had been doing anything more than being out on the streets in protest. That’s the problem with Rittenhouse and that’s the problem with the rest of his armed mob.

Hi Jakee,

Your two latest posts are some of the best that I have ever read.

You are dead on.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Jakee,

Your two latest posts are some of the best that I have ever read.

You are dead on.

Jerry Baumchen

Thanks!

 

Doesn’t happen often but sometimes I can get on a roll :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what I can take away from all this bullshit is the basic belief here, is that looters and rioters, arsonists, and criminals have more right to be out on the street than anyone protecting from those that would loot, riot, start fires, and such.

I see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, turtlespeed said:

So, what I can take away from all this bullshit is the basic belief here, is that looters and rioters, arsonists, and criminals have more right to be out on the street than anyone protecting from those that would loot, riot, start fires, and such.

I see.

 

No, property crime shouldn't be combated by civilians murdering people. Buildings can be rebuilt, companies can be insured. A life cannot be replaced. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

And please stop this whole: people just need to follow the law routine, cause you are way too partisan to use that argument.

Share this post


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

So, what I can take away from all this bullshit is the basic belief here, is that looters and rioters, arsonists, and criminals have more right to be out on the street than anyone protecting from those that would loot, riot, start fires, and such.

No, that’s not what you can take away from this thread. No one but you has said it, no one but you believes it. You’ve simply made it up. 
 

It’s also, again, irrelevant - since Rittenhouse did not end up protecting anyone. He just killed people who you STILL have no reason to believe were involved in any looting or arson, no matter how many times you slander them by saying it.

Share this post


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

So, what I can take away from all this bullshit is the basic belief here, is that looters and rioters, arsonists, and criminals have more right to be out on the street than anyone protecting from those that would loot, riot, start fires, and such.

Nope.  Just another fabrication you made up in your head. 

Anyone has a right to be out on the street and protest.  No one has the right to murder anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  Just another fabrication you made up in your head. 

Anyone has a right to be out on the street and protest.  No one has the right to murder anyone.

Do people have a right to set dumpster fires, destroy businesses, and Loot?

Share this post


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

Do people have a right to set dumpster fires, destroy businesses, and Loot?

No they don’t. Then again, most protesters aren’t doing that, any more than most gun owners are shooting people. 
you not only want the gun owners who don’t shoot protesters to be lionized, you want the one who did to be granted all benefit of the doubt, while assuming that every person who doesn’t actively identify with the people opposing the protests is setting dumpster fires and looting. 
When you want guilt by association on one side, and innocent-because... on the other, your goalposts may be skewed. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


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

Do people have a right to set dumpster fires, destroy businesses, and Loot?

Of course not. But so what?

 

By the way, notice that you've asked this question several times and it keeps getting answered the same way. Notice also that you've been asked a lot of questions over the last page or so and you've ignored almost all of them - fairly obviously because you have no answers. At what point do you realise you're defending the indefensible?

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