|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 28, 2020 16:11:23 GMT -5
I'm not sure why any of this matters. This kid went out of his way to go to Kenosha, steeling himself to murder people. Yes, that's what it is when you combine 'protect stuff' with bringing a gun. The intent was there from the start. He never had to or should have been there. Maybe if it was the kid's parents store or house he might have walked away from this as not guilty, but no way in hell should that be the case here. Just wondering, do you feel the same way about the out of town people on the other side that brought guns too? That's a bit of a yes and a no. The intent is different, these people brought guns to what could turn into a riot. What's the point of a gun in a riot? Not much, unless you actively search for someone to shoot. If they had shot someone than hell yes they would be guilty and should go to prison. But intent deviates in the reason for bringing a gun (one assumes). One brings it to a riot to participate in said riot, but participating in a riot doesn't require the use of a gun. The other person went to a riot to stop it/'protect stuff', to do so would mean using the gun for the primary reason you travel there. If both shot someone they should both go to jail as bringing a gun is an unnecessary act that can lead to severe escalation, but only one party came with a gun as the primary motivator, because it was the only lethal deterrent that enabled him to be there. So the yes and no feeling, intent matters, but use should be equally guilty. Guns never helps. Law enforcement is certainly severely flawed in the US. But as Hats points out, this leads to an arms race. Which will only make police violence worse, as the shoot first response is in large part based on US gun culture. This is why openly carrying guns is such a mess. This would have easily been prevented with less guns or not being able to openly carry and incite the situation. As for the kid, unfortunately he's an idiot. His brain isn't fully developed yet and he was likely raised with a certain slant. While tragic, he still killed two people through events he set in motion, making prison inevitable in my view. Now can he be rehabilitated? He probably can and should, but that's not what the US justice system is designed for. The US failed him growing up and now it will fail him going through the system. But he's still alive, that's more than his victims can say. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 28, 2020 16:11:51 GMT -5
For those absolutely too retarded to read, like wolfblade, to quote the article I linked to: A new Wisconsin law allows children of any age to hunt with a gun as long as they are accompanied by an adult, USA Today reports. Hunters must be 14 years of age or older and pass the state's gun safety courses before being allowed to hunt on their ownThat has absolutely nothing to do with open carry, only hunting. Do you really think he was hunting? Seriously? In the middle of the city? How many times were you dropped on the head as a young child? He literally went there with a gun expecting to "defend himself" .. It depends on how the law is written. It may have been intended for hunting only, but the wording may be different. I can't find the exact statute. Even if it is irrelevant it still doesn't change the fact that you are too stupid to read, and jump to the accusation that "That's a blatant lie". |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 28, 2020 16:12:37 GMT -5
I specifically stated that there WERE some instances of alt-right people doing just that. You're portrayal of BLM/ ANTIFA being totally innocent of instigating violence is also wrong. Uhhhh, no. It wasn't. Your insistence that the majority of violence/rioting being started by BLM/Antifa is wrong. The vast majority has been started by neo-nazis, which you refuse to admit in spite of all the evidence proving you wrong. Go back to sucking trump off already on whatever 4chan/neo-nazi site you visit. Go back there and be "one of the good ones" already. Got a source on that "vast majority" claim fuckface? |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 28, 2020 16:18:29 GMT -5
Just wondering, do you feel the same way about the out of town people on the other side that brought guns too? That's a bit of a yes and a no. The intent is different, these people brought guns to what could turn into a riot. What's the point of a gun in a riot? Not much, unless you actively search for someone to shoot. If they had shot someone than hell yes they would be guilty and should go to prison. But intent deviates in the reason for bringing a gun (one assumes). One brings it to a riot to participate in said riot, but participating in a riot doesn't require the use of a gun. The other person went to a riot to stop it/'protect stuff', to do so would mean using the gun for the primary reason you travel there. If both shot someone they should both go to jail as bringing a gun is an unnecessary act that can lead to severe escalation, but only one party came with a gun as the primary motivator, because it was the only lethal deterrent that enabled him to be there. So the yes and no feeling, intent matters, but use should be equally guilty. Guns never helps. Law enforcement is certainly severely flawed in the US. But as Hats points out, this leads to an arms race. Which will only make police violence worse, as the shoot first response is in large part based on US gun culture. This is why openly carrying guns is such a mess. This would have easily been prevented with less guns or not being able to openly carry and incite the situation. As for the kid, unfortunately he's an idiot. His brain isn't fully developed yet and he was likely raised with a certain slant. While tragic, he still killed two people through events he set in motion, making prison inevitable in my view. Now can he be rehabilitated? He probably can and should, but that's not what the US justice system is designed for. The US failed him growing up and now it will fail him going through the system. But he's still alive, that's more than his victims can say. I'm not arguing this kid wasn't an idiot. Saying that "events he set in motion" implies he was the only one that set these events in motion though. I'd say there is enough blame to go around. The guy that got shot in the elbow was drawing his weapon on Rittenhouse before being shot, and has since stated that he wished he didn't hesitate in firing, so he also had the intent to kill. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 28, 2020 16:21:58 GMT -5
But he did set events in motion by going on a 30 min drive with a gun. Of course he wasn't being the only idiot on that day, but if he had stayed home, two people would be alive today. He didn't have to be there and neither did the people protesting/rioting. But those people didn't go there with the intent to use lethal force, he did.
As for the other guy, that's exactly the type of escalation you get when openly armed people show up. Leave it to the police or insurance, that's why they exist. The other guy wasn't there with intent to kill though, that came after two people had been killed.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 28, 2020 16:27:58 GMT -5
But he did set events in motion by going on a 30 min drive with a gun. Of course he wasn't being the only idiot on that day, but if he had stayed home, two people would be alive today. He didn't have to be there and neither did the people protesting/rioting. But those people didn't go there with the intent to use lethal force, he did. One of those people had over twice the distance to drive, another about the same. You're assuming he went there with the intent on using lethal force, and the other side did not. Being armed while protecting property does not mean you have the intent to shoot to protect property, a whole industry of security guards could attest to that. Perhaps he just wanted to have something to defend himself with if shit went south, like being chased by a mob of people with guns/Molotov's. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 28, 2020 16:30:49 GMT -5
Bringing a gun to protect property comes with the inherent notion that you might have to use it to do so, killing people in the process. Why else would security guards be armed versus unarmed then?
Taking a gun to say a riot does not, because burning cars or looting stores does not require use of a gun.
Distance driven does not matter if its a riot, because the intent is illegal activities, it does to protect property of strangers, because that is beyond logical reason (i.e. your own property). He willingly inserted himself into a situation in which he was prepared to use lethal force, hence bringing the gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 28, 2020 16:31:34 GMT -5
That has absolutely nothing to do with open carry, only hunting. Do you really think he was hunting? Seriously? In the middle of the city? How many times were you dropped on the head as a young child? He literally went there with a gun expecting to "defend himself" .. It depends on how the law is written. It may have been intended for hunting only, but the wording may be different. I can't find the exact statute. Even if it is irrelevant it still doesn't change the fact that you are too stupid to read, and jump to the accusation that "That's a blatant lie". because it IS a blatant lie for you to try and defend his illegal carrying of a gun with "but he might have been a hunter!" It doesn't matter if he was a mentee, non-mentor, or a mentor. He's not 18, he's not allowed to carry. Uhhhh, no. It wasn't. Your insistence that the majority of violence/rioting being started by BLM/Antifa is wrong. The vast majority has been started by neo-nazis, which you refuse to admit in spite of all the evidence proving you wrong. Go back to sucking trump off already on whatever 4chan/neo-nazi site you visit. Go back there and be "one of the good ones" already. Got a source on that "vast majority" claim fuckface? I already did, and you ignored it you stupid fucking idiot. You either dismissed it or stuck your head back up your ass when I presented you with evidence so you wouldn't have to look at it. But as you've asked I'll actually provide sources even when you won't when anyone else asks. Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists and Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists (house.gov link) U.S. officials investigate protest disinformation, possible agents provocateurOutsiders, extremists are among those fomenting violence in Twin CitiesMany Claim Extremists Are Sparking Protest Violence. But Which Extremists?Violent protest clashes turned Portland into a ‘right-wing boogeyman.’ Here’s how it happened.LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOW POLICE KNEW FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS WERE THE REAL THREAT AT PROTESTS, NOT “ANTIFA”Right-wing provocateurs continue to be arrested for protest violenceThree Nevada 'Boogaloo Bois' Arrested by FBI in Firebombing PlotSuspect in killing of 2 Bay Area officers tied to right-wing ‘boogaloo’ group, prosecutors allegeNow, I'm sure you'll ignore or dismiss it again (i.e. marketwatch because you don't understand who the "good people" of the Unite the Right rally didn't exist or were nazis, take your pick.) So, where's your evidence showing it's Antifa/BLM causing all the riots? Lemme guess, PJmedia or whatever again? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 16:41:40 GMT -5
It depends on how the law is written. It may have been intended for hunting only, but the wording may be different. I can't find the exact statute. Even if it is irrelevant it still doesn't change the fact that you are too stupid to read, and jump to the accusation that "That's a blatant lie". Well, according to Wisconsin Prosecutors, he's right, it is a blatant lie. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 16:44:01 GMT -5
One of those people had over twice the distance to drive, another about the same. You're assuming he went there with the intent on using lethal force, and the other side did not. Being armed while protecting property does not mean you have the intent to shoot to protect property, a whole industry of security guards could attest to that. Perhaps he just wanted to have something to defend himself with if shit went south, like being chased by a mob of people with guns/Molotov's.
Considering that he went there with an armed militia, I'd say that odds are good he went with the intent to use lethal force. Based on the charges that have been filed, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 28, 2020 16:52:58 GMT -5
It depends on how the law is written. It may have been intended for hunting only, but the wording may be different. I can't find the exact statute. Even if it is irrelevant it still doesn't change the fact that you are too stupid to read, and jump to the accusation that "That's a blatant lie". Well, according to Wisconsin Prosecutors, he's right, it is a blatant lie. Strawman much? HE quite literally referred to the article that I posted, and claimed that 14 year olds MUST be "within arms reach". I can't help it if the dumb fuck can't read, or that you strawman. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 28, 2020 16:55:35 GMT -5
It depends on how the law is written. It may have been intended for hunting only, but the wording may be different. I can't find the exact statute. Even if it is irrelevant it still doesn't change the fact that you are too stupid to read, and jump to the accusation that "That's a blatant lie". because it IS a blatant lie for you to try and defend his illegal carrying of a gun with "but he might have been a hunter!" It doesn't matter if he was a mentee, non-mentor, or a mentor. He's not 18, he's not allowed to carry. Got a source on that "vast majority" claim fuckface? I already did, and you ignored it you stupid fucking idiot. You either dismissed it or stuck your head back up your ass when I presented you with evidence so you wouldn't have to look at it. But as you've asked I'll actually provide sources even when you won't when anyone else asks. Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists and Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists (house.gov link) U.S. officials investigate protest disinformation, possible agents provocateurOutsiders, extremists are among those fomenting violence in Twin CitiesMany Claim Extremists Are Sparking Protest Violence. But Which Extremists?Violent protest clashes turned Portland into a ‘right-wing boogeyman.’ Here’s how it happened.LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOW POLICE KNEW FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS WERE THE REAL THREAT AT PROTESTS, NOT “ANTIFA”Right-wing provocateurs continue to be arrested for protest violenceThree Nevada 'Boogaloo Bois' Arrested by FBI in Firebombing PlotSuspect in killing of 2 Bay Area officers tied to right-wing ‘boogaloo’ group, prosecutors allegeNow, I'm sure you'll ignore or dismiss it again (i.e. marketwatch because you don't understand who the "good people" of the Unite the Right rally didn't exist or were nazis, take your pick.) So, where's your evidence showing it's Antifa/BLM causing all the riots? Lemme guess, PJmedia or whatever again? Well, hey, you're the one that claims African Americans were Alt-right, white supremacist Nazis. Also, those don't say the vast majority of violence was by right wing extremists, only that they did some stuff. I guess you're also too dumb to know the difference. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Aug 28, 2020 16:58:35 GMT -5
Uh oh. Department of Justice just announced that 74 BLM members are being charged with Federal crimes including arson, rioting, assault on officers during Portland Riots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 28, 2020 17:07:37 GMT -5
because it IS a blatant lie for you to try and defend his illegal carrying of a gun with "but he might have been a hunter!" It doesn't matter if he was a mentee, non-mentor, or a mentor. He's not 18, he's not allowed to carry. I already did, and you ignored it you stupid fucking idiot. You either dismissed it or stuck your head back up your ass when I presented you with evidence so you wouldn't have to look at it. But as you've asked I'll actually provide sources even when you won't when anyone else asks. Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists and Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists (house.gov link) U.S. officials investigate protest disinformation, possible agents provocateurOutsiders, extremists are among those fomenting violence in Twin CitiesMany Claim Extremists Are Sparking Protest Violence. But Which Extremists?Violent protest clashes turned Portland into a ‘right-wing boogeyman.’ Here’s how it happened.LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOW POLICE KNEW FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS WERE THE REAL THREAT AT PROTESTS, NOT “ANTIFA”Right-wing provocateurs continue to be arrested for protest violenceThree Nevada 'Boogaloo Bois' Arrested by FBI in Firebombing PlotSuspect in killing of 2 Bay Area officers tied to right-wing ‘boogaloo’ group, prosecutors allegeNow, I'm sure you'll ignore or dismiss it again (i.e. marketwatch because you don't understand who the "good people" of the Unite the Right rally didn't exist or were nazis, take your pick.) So, where's your evidence showing it's Antifa/BLM causing all the riots? Lemme guess, PJmedia or whatever again? Well, hey, you're the one that claims African Americans were Alt-right, white supremacist Nazis. Also, those don't say the vast majority of violence was by right wing extremists, only that they did some stuff. I guess you're also too dumb to know the difference. I love how you can't actually refute any of it, or provide evidence for your claim. Several of the sources DO point to the far right/neo-nazis as being the source of the riots/violence, but you didn't read or even skim any of them. In fact, the only claim you have is that trump's DOJ is charging BLM members... because he would NEVER abuse the government to line his own pocket or attack his political enemies. you also keep making these claims about me being "the one that claims African Americans were Alt-right, white supremacist Nazis" when you're literally defending neo-nazis and white supremacists as a POC... but you never want to address that. You purposefully ignore how you, a minority are defending nazis and claiming it'd be ludicrous for a POC to do so. Also, I can't even find anything on them being charged. I'd ask for a source, but I doubt you'll provide it. Well, according to Wisconsin Prosecutors, he's right, it is a blatant lie. Strawman much? HE quite literally referred to the article that I posted, and claimed that 14 year olds MUST be "within arms reach". I can't help it if the dumb fuck can't read, or that you strawman. Your article: thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/360255-new-wisconsin-law-allows-children-of-any-age-to-hunt-with-gunsBolded because you can't read, and the article is almost 3 years old. The bill was signed into law meaning it replaced the old one about being 14 years old. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 28, 2020 17:11:35 GMT -5
Wait, I DID find something finally. It's actually not charging "BLM" members, but violent agitators... which I feel I've shown plenty of evidence showing it's largely neo-nazis: 74 people are facing federal charges for crimes committed during Portland riotsLiterally no mention of BLM/Black Lives Matter or Antifa here. But I'm sure carlo will provide evidence to prove his point. He'd never just stick his head up his ass and pretend to not see it. |
|
