Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[Poe It Up 126]

12 minutes ago, Pancho said:

What harassment is happening? 

 

Goddamn you’re a retard. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8799]

With those 2 guns on display, he should’ve been shot.

[Moby Ric 2058]

25 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Goddamn you’re a retard. 

They all are.  I don't know why any of you engage with them.

[workswithseed 2037]

3 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

You don't travel from out of state with a gun to a protest because you have good intentions. Just stop.

 

I've heard that it was his friends who lives in state, so the rifle wouldn't be out of state.

[dcar00 14036]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

Here’s someone who wasn’t shot while actually wrestling a cop.  Wonder why?

 

Here's an unarmed white guy getting executed by the Kenosha cops

https://michaelbell.info/Evidence.html

 

[Brisketexan 104708]

You know it's really odd.
I could swear that some people that were defending a person carrying a carbine in the Austin incident are the same folks condemning a person carrying a carbine in the Kenosha incident.
One would think that those opposed to openly carrying and carbine rifle, like me, would be consistent on that issue.
Similarly, I am pretty sure there are people here who were against the person who defended himself with a pistol against a carbine in the Austin incident while defending the person with a pistol who attacked a person with a carbine rifle in Kenosha. 
It's so odd, I can't figure out why they would flip flop on such important political issues.
Of course, there are also freaks like me that found culpability in all parties in both incidents but I'm a weirdo who likes to victim blame apparently.

You do raise an interesting point of comparison. In the Austin case, many of us discussed the fact that carrying a rifle, and then raising it in a manner to threaten a third party, may well justify an act of self defense by that third party In other words, the guy carrying the rifle doesn’t need to fire it to be a threat - merely raising it starts the chain of events that justified using force against him.

So, seems it comes back to this...who was the first to create a legitimate threat here? Did Rittenhouse raise his rifle at someone who wasn’t a physical threat at that moment? If so, 1) he started a confrontation and 2) the use of force against him was justified (applying the Austin standard). This should all come back to the first act that started the physical confrontation.


And yes, both guys were idiots for bringing a rifle to a tense situation. They were looking to get into a gunfight, and they got what they were looking for. You either end up dead, or having made someone else dead. That’s a lose-lose proposition.

[hayden_horn 11360]

i think i am going to start banning people who post misinformation.  fair warning. 

[immortal13 4059]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i think i am going to start banning people who post misinformation.  fair warning. 

I hope you have plenty of free time on your hands

[seven 1366]

2 hours ago, mchookem said:

you're not that unique tbh...some of us ranted after both incidents about how fucking RIDICULOUS all these gotdamn guns and shootouts in the middle of the fucking street are. some of 'us' think living in the wild west in 2020 is a massive regression of american civilization.

 

Sadly, the response many people have is that we need more guns. It's insane. 

[Brisketexan 104708]

Really?  Going up to people at restaurants and screaming at them?  Walking through neighborhoods late at night with a megaphone?  There's all sorts of harassment going on.

And, you know, you might forget this...but a phalanx of Minneapolis COPS marched through a neighborhood, and shot rubber bullets at people who were on their own porch. Yep, harassment seems important to y’all....sometimes.

[Pancho 44517]

1 hour ago, Poe It Up said:

Goddamn you’re a retard. 

Sir, it’s Dr. Retard. Get it right next time.

[Hate 20104]

And, you know, you might forget this...but a phalanx of Minneapolis COPS marched through a neighborhood, and shot rubber bullets at people who were on their own porch. Yep, harassment seems important to y’all....sometimes.

Did anyone ever say they were good with that?

[Enchubben 5509]

14 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think i am going to start banning people who post misinformation.  fair warning. 

Did you hear about the Molotov cocktail the pedo threw?

 

 

 

Just kidding.

[workswithseed 2037]

6 minutes ago, Hate said:

Did anyone ever say they were good with that?

Yes, everyone cheered when the asshole shot at them while they were on their property.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

4 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Sometimes intelligent folks like you and Atom disappoint me when you side completely with your team/movement and throw out all logic.

I'd love you to compare your position here with the situation in Austin where the guy with the AR died. 

Edit - And BT's cisgender sock has been on ignore for a very long time.

My position has been pretty consistent.  People open carrying in urban settings is stupid and leads to shit like this, and that.  If the moron in Austin hadn’t been packing, he likely wouldn’t be dead.  If this stupid kid hadn’t brought a firearm to a protest, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  

[atomheartbevo 89465]

 

23 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think i am going to start banning people who post misinformation.  fair warning. 

Or change their avatar to a TexAgs or Qanon avatar.   I think it would be hilarious and also a solid warning to everybody else about what they are posting.

[Helobious 9483]

10 minutes ago, Hate said:

Did anyone ever say they were good with that?

The top comment on that video on TikTok was something like “they’re trying to keep you safe you deserved to get shot”. Some 40,000+ likes

[Brisketexan 104708]

Did anyone ever say they were good with that?

Round here, we back the blue. The REAL problem is rioters and looters. Their cause is this illegitimate now, and we need to support the cops, who bring law and order. Did I miss something? I think that’s a pretty accurate summary of where we are now. Zero fucking complaints about the cops, the problem is rioters and looters, and aren’t y’all sorry you criticized the cops, now that you want them to protect your neighborhoods?

[immortal13 4059]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And, you know, you might forget this...but a phalanx of Minneapolis COPS marched through a neighborhood, and shot rubber bullets at people who were on their own porch. Yep, harassment seems important to y’all....sometimes.

Who the fuck are you talking about? I could make assumptions about what's important to you, but that would be ignorant and stupid. See how that works? 

[Hate 20104]

The top comment on that video on TikTok was something like “they’re trying to keep you safe you deserved to get shot”. Some 40,000+ likes

I meant here on Surly. I don’t think anyone has come out and said that the police acted correctly. I don’t think anyone on Surly supports rubber bullets being shot at peaceful protesters. I can’t speak for the 40 thousand plus likes that video got on Tik Tok mainly because I don’t pay any attention to any of the comments on Twitter or Tik Tok.

[dcar00 14036]

4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Hmmm so, are you saying that the rioters and looters have changed the discussion from police issues to issues around rioting and looting? 

Who is responsible for the shift of focus from the issues with police to issues of rioting and looting?

apparently you don't JACKBOOTS!!

[52-80 19101]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

Here’s someone who wasn’t shot while actually wrestling a cop.  Wonder why?

 

there are literally thousands of arrests made a day.  you want to use 1 sample to make a point?

 

what sort of narrative do you want to construct?  that police show selective leniency towards blacks and thus dont shoot them? 

 

 

black cop tasing black guy cuz black police are racist?

 

 

 

[immortal13 4059]

4 minutes ago, Hate said:

I meant here on Surly. I don’t think anyone has come out and said that the police acted correctly. I don’t think anyone on Surly supports rubber bullets being shot at peaceful protesters. I can’t speak for the 40 thousand plus likes that video got on Tik Tok mainly because I don’t pay any attention to any of the comments on Twitter or Tik Tok.

This. When Brisket said "y'all", he was referring to this board

Edited August 30, 2020 by immortal13

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

My position has been pretty consistent.  People open carrying in urban settings is stupid and leads to shit like this, and that.  If the moron in Austin hadn’t been packing, he likely wouldn’t be dead.  If this stupid kid hadn’t brought a firearm to a protest, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  

It wasn't a protest.  It was looting and destruction.

[Brisketexan 104708]

Hmmm so, are you saying that the rioters and looters have changed the discussion from police issues to issues around rioting and looting? 
Who is responsible for the shift of focus from the issues with police to issues of rioting and looting?

Excellent. So, we have unambiguous video of Trumpers driving giant trucks illegally through red lights and walk signals in a cross walk to attack pedestrians. Clear as day.

I presume that we no longer need to discuss any legitimate basis for people to support Trump, because some of his supporters are committing illegal acts of violence in his name. Right? Isn’t that how this works? Goose, gander, and all that.

[Captainant 27481]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

It wasn't a protest.  It was looting and destruction.

It wasn't property protection. It was shooting and vigilantism. 

We're at the point where the cops and the president are supporting the very same people who are murdering unarmed protesters. Cops are thanking them for their service. 

And they're using the blanket excuse of looting, destruction, and rioting to justify the extrajudicial slaying of anyone they arbitrarily consider "bad people". And then after murdering them, the right wing of the internet goes and creates official looking dossiers and charges, which people like @MillerEP and @Enchubben et al post on here and then are used by flathead racists like @Johnny Sack to gleefully talk about "canoeing" their heads

[hayden_horn 11360]

35 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Did you hear about the Molotov cocktail the pedo threw?

 

 

 

Just kidding.

no, no, jokes are fine. but when people repeatedly post the same false facts after it has been debunked in the very thread, it has a massively negative effect on the discussion. The first time would get a pass, but once the truth has come to light, and you couldn't be bothered to keep up with the thread in your haste to come post about the pedo and the molotov, whether accidental or on purpose (i don't really care which), you get a vacation. 

hopefully people will start to think more critically. this also doesn't go for developing stories. there are always things during live events that are wrong. 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

It wasn't a protest.  It was looting and destruction.

I’ll believe you if you actually post something to back up the “looting and destruction “ part, with this particular crowd, location and time.  The only thing I heard the crowd did was “clash with police” earlier in a different location.

[Brisketexan 104708]

Ohhhh now we want to talk about the law do we?
Hahah... Epic.

If you can find where I’ve approved of rioting and illegal violence, have at it.

We’ve just been told a thousand times (seriously, at least that many times on this board alone) that having lawless violence affiliated with your cause delegitimizes your cause. I don’t agree with that take, but I’m clearly an idiot among geniuses, so I defer to the wisdom of the DT crowd. So, I’m just curious - does that rule apply only to BLM, or does it apply to Trumpers too? Just trying to figure out the rules here.

[Nicole44 22028]

@Anastasis and I like fireworks. Anyone who does not fireworks sucks! 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

42 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Or change their avatar to a TexAgs or Qanon avatar.   I think it would be hilarious and also a solid warning to everybody else about what they are posting.

This would, at the very least, be worth the entertainment value of the threads started in ‘Please do this better’

[52-80 19101]

9 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I’ll believe you if you actually post something to back up the “looting and destruction “ part, with this particular crowd, location and time.  The only thing I heard the crowd did was “clash with police” earlier in a different location.

joseph rosenbaum, peacefully setting garbage bins on fire

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1300121579045744642/FgHVstH7?format=jpg&name=small

 

 

 

 

[52-80 19101]

lead guy pushing the garbage bin

 

maybe he didnt like the fact that the boyscout was putting out his fires

 

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It wasn't property protection. It was shooting and vigilantism. 

 

I agree.  That does not justify the looters and meatheads being there in the first place.   The notion that everything would be OK if one rifle hadn't been there is certainly a matter of perspective.

In no way have I condoned or defended what the 17 year old did.  I posted far upthread that he was wrong.  Period.  I just disagree with the conflating of protests with looting and destruction.   They are not one in the same.  Now people are using the words interchangeably.  It is incorrect.

[atomheartbevo 89465]

19 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

@Anastasis and I like fireworks. Anyone who does not fireworks sucks! 

If you like fireworks, tune in on Tuesday.

[washparkhorn 9935]

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

maybe he didnt like the fact that the boyscout was putting out his fires

The vigilante was not seasoned enough to know gas stations have an emergency cut-off switch ~50 feet away where all takes it is a nonchalant push of a button. 

The vigilante was out of his league and people died because of his actions. That is nothing to celebrate. 

[Nicole44 22028]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If you like fireworks, tune in on Tuesday.

Do you have 💥 fireworks? Ohhhhh and they are playing the Cowboys scrimmage Later this afternoon on KBVO. Two small things to be happy about. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....of name calling, making shitty assumptions, picking apart one statement in a persons post...you know important shit like that. 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

He wasn't the only one who took actions. Some people died because of their own actions crossed with the actions of others.

This didn't happen in a vacuum. 

Right. 
 

however the point people are missing is that the issue were talking about is a snap shot. 
 

if the kid had waited 10 more seconds, he may have been justified. However, there was chaos, other moving parts, adrenaline and his inexperience leading him to act prematurely. 

after he discharged his weapon the situation was changed, putting express legal responsibilities on his shoulders.
 

 

[Brisketexan 104708]

34 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I wasn't saying you approved of rioting and illegal violence, rather that looting and illegal violence in all its forms should be condemned and I have seen in your own posts condemnation only toward a singular group's looting and illegal violence. Moreover, that it is taking away, both parties use of said actions, from the main issues at hand that actually need to be addressed.

Which is what I said would happen at the very start. Way back.

Tribes and teams, colors and skin tone. 

And this thread supports that notion just like all the others on the topic. 

We come together as one people, we the people, to address the issues that ultimately effect all of us, or we will be torn apart. We are.

I have been anti-rioting and violence from the get-go -- in fact, well before then.  That's why I have decried, consistently, the destruction of the rule of law.  When we as a society opt out of the Rule of Law, fairly and equally applied to all members of society, then we have opted for the alternative: the Rule of Violence.  I have never said anything BUT "we really, really shouldn't do that."  But we do.  Because that's clearly how we want things to be.

So, when we opt out of the Rule of Law, and into the Rule of Violence, I do note that all of the handwringing about what was entirely predictable and predicted, and brought on by our own relentlessly shitty choices, sounds really fucking hollow.  If we hate violence so much, then we should probably make sure that the Rule of Law fucking works for everyone, so that the alternate Rule isn't put into effect.

Riots and violence do not bring about the collapse of a functioning civil society.  They are an indicator that the society has already collapsed.

We have no interest in the equal application of the Rule of Law.  We are dedicated to a system of laws that are enforced against some, but not others, and protect some, but not others.  Our dedication is demonstrated by our near total resistance to any meaningful change of the status quo.  It is demonstrated by our gleeful desire to discredit any movement that would stand for justice before it can even get traction, because some people associated with it (a fucking SMALL FRACTION of the number of people who actually support the movement) wreck shit.  Yet when the forces of "Law and Order" wreck shit, shoot peaceful protesters in the face, etc., well, they were ASKING FOR IT (because, again, SOME people associated with the movement have done bad shit -- so the safe thing is to shoot them ALL in the face, I guess, just to be sure).

We worship and fetishize tools of violence, and discredit and shit on tools of peaceful resolution (actual legal/legislative action to bring about change).  Everything that's happening in America right now?  It wasn't just predictable -- it was predicted.  We haven't just asked for it -- we've DEMANDED it.  This is the country, functioning EXACTLY as it is presently designed.    All of this shit is a feature, not a bug.

Edited August 30, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Brisketexan 104708]

6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The evidence I have seen, to the point, indicates the first person shot had been chasing the shooter for some time. After chasing him for some time the person shot, according to known evidence, tried to grab the shooters rifle. 

What you haven't answered (and I don't think we know) is "who started that confrontation?"

In Austin, we established that the idiot raising his rifle in a threatening manner started it, and a violent response to neutralize that threat was justified.

If Rittenhouse did the exact same thing -- started the confrontation by threatening someone with a rifle -- would that not ALSO justify a response to neutralize the threat?

I really AM "just asking questions," because 1) we seem to have established that "what started it" matters, and 2) here, we don't know "what started it."

And again, this is all aside and apart from the idiocy of both of them showing up with a gun and itching for a scenario where somebody -- you or someone else -- ends up dead.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Hmm.. the evidence I am aware of doesn't align with your assessment of the reality. 

The evidence I have seen, to the point, indicates the first person shot had been chasing the shooter for some time. After chasing him for some time the person shot, according to known evidence, tried to grab the shooters rifle. 

In the second shooting the shooter was on the ground and multiple people engaged in various ways. One of those people were armed. 

Please clarify, based on known evidence, how exactly and why you conclude that his actions were premature. 

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean by "after discharging his weapon... express legal obligation was placed upon his shoulder." I'm unclear what you intend with that statement.

when it comes to ‘known’ evidence, I would say that’s a stark matter of opinion, the only one mattering in this particular case being the DAs.

the legal obligations I refer to is the self defense laws in WI 

[Guest]

The people must be governed gotdammit.

 

Seriously.  Lolz.

How bout acting like a freaking human being in the first place?   Nope.   Unpossible.   Other dude broke the law, so now I'ma throw a fit.

[Brisketexan 104708]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

What "started it", was a combination of all factors in both situations. 

Had the AR person in Austin who "started it" walked or RAN away post initial conflict and the pistol person ran after him and shot him, he would be legally wrong. 

The dead man in Kenosha running after someone who "started it" that was no longer posing a threat to him makes him the aggressor. At that point it's not a continuation of threat, just like the situation above. 

In both example the responsibility shifts to the aggressor legally. If you'd like to dispute that I'm open to how, legally, you would do so.

 

There are additional facts that may or may not be legally determinative.  Running away alone does not mean that you are no longer a threat.  If he is continuing to brandish the weapon or make statements in a manner meant to threaten the pursuer or others, then he remains an active threat.  And I really don't know what those facts are, either.

I do think that he has a tough factual hill to climb when he went there for what very much appears like the purpose of hunting people.  But that alone won't neutralize other direct facts if they are sufficiently exculpatory.

[atomheartbevo 89465]

41 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

Do you have 💥 fireworks? Ohhhhh and they are playing the Cowboys scrimmage Later this afternoon on KBVO. Two small things to be happy about. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....of name calling, making shitty assumptions, picking apart one statement in a persons post...you know important shit like that. 

Somebody is scheduled to visit Kenosho.   They've been asked not to come, but they are still going to show up.

[goatsaag 279]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I do think that he has a tough factual hill to climb when he went there for what very much appears like the purpose of hunting people.  But that alone won't neutralize other direct facts if they are sufficiently exculpatory.

I'm curious as to why this is your belief. Did every person there with a gun go there for the purpose of hunting people?

[Brisketexan 104708]

14 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You say that anti-rioting yet write:

lawless violence affiliated with your cause delegitimizes your cause. I don’t agree with that take

I said you seem to condemn it on one side and support it on the other. You say:

Yet when the forces of "Law and Order" wreck shit, shoot peaceful protesters in the face, etc., well, they were ASKING FOR IT (because, again, SOME people associated with the movement have done bad shit -- so the safe thing is to shoot them ALL in the face, I guess, just to be sure).

And then:

Everything that's happening in America right now?  It wasn't just predictable -- it was predicted.  We haven't just asked for it -- we've DEMANDED it.  This is the country, functioning EXACTLY as it is presently designed. 

Yet still claim to be anti-rioting while you also seem to be saying that it is a function of the system.

Finally you say:

Riots and violence do not bring about the collapse of a functioning civil society.  They are an indicator that the society has already collapsed.

In which case none of this matters, at all. If this society has already collapsed, why do you give a shit any longer? 

Ummmm....yeah.  Nothing I said above is inconsistent.

The forces of general lawlessness and crime....have always been that.  Bad guys are bad guys.  They are acting consistently with who they are -- and part of our social contract is that we will have a system of Laws to deal with them.  I expect there to be bad guys; I expect a system of justice that deals with them to keep crime and criminal activity to some baseline level (we can't ever prevent/stop all crime).

The forces of Law and Order, on the other hand....when they act with violence outside the law, they are acting INCONSISTENTLY with who the social contract calls on and expects them to be.  And when they get to do so without answering to the Rule of Law, they are acting INCONSISTENTLY with the very thing they are obligated to uphold.  That's a complete break with the social contract.

I expect criminals to do bad shit.

I expect cops to do, you know, the exact opposite.  Not "they do bad shit with total impunity."

Yes, I am definitely anti-rioting -- and rioting and civil unrest IS a function of our current system, which means that I am telling you that the system is BROKEN.  If we were a functioning civil society, we would do much better at applying the Rule of Law equally and with justice for all.  Thus, rioting and civil unrest would NOT be a natural consequence of our system.

Why do I give a shit?  Because I remain an idiot, with the tiniest sliver of hope (again, merely having hope proves that I am an absolute idiot who refuses to accept the overwhelming evidence before him).  I hope that we can BE a functioning civil society.  We certainly aren't right now, but maybe we can change that?  Maybe we can undo our current ongoing collapse?  I wouldn't take my retirement fund to Vegas and bet on that, but it's what we have to want, it's what we have to hope for.

[Nicole44 22028]

People are being killed now. People are making choices. You can make a choice to be out after curfew and participate in violence and destruction or you can protest during the day/help to clean up the destruction.

It’s a choice. It’s a choice to bring a gun to a riot. It’s a choice. People are making choices. They are making decisions.

We understand there are plenty of people in power from police to politicians to CEOs to Hollywood celebrities are not treated the same as us. Won’t get punished like the vast majority of us. It has always been that way and will always be that way. 

I don’t want deadly force to be used on any Person period unless that force is absolutely necessary.

Burning down a damn building won’t deliver justice and believe it or not may not even bring the political results people want or the change people want. What if the continuing riots end up serving those already in power that we want removed or punished? What if the end result is more police? What if instead of gentrification of downtown cities (which is sad enough/ bad enough) people with businesses just pull up stakes and leave? Never come back? Go somewhere where their property will be protected and never come back? 
the people headed to the riots on purpose To fight with other rioters are making choices. They are making choices. Bad choices. 
the city and state leaders are making choices on how to deal with said riots. They are making choices. 
 

you know who doesn’t have a choice, the small business owner forced out of business because someone burned it down and destroyed it and he can no longer afford the insurance or ability to rebuild. He didn’t have a choice. He didn’t ask for this. He didn’t shoot Jacob Blake.

[Brisketexan 104708]

3 minutes ago, goatsaag said:

I'm curious as to why this is your belief. Did every person there with a gun go there for the purpose of hunting people?

No.  If it's your home, your store, and you are there, and are armed to protect your property, then you are most likely acting for the purpose of protecting your property.

When you have a stated desire to play hero wannabe cop, and you travel from out of town/state TO the event loaded for bear....yeah, you're hunting people.  Just like someone who has a stated desire to "burn down the property of capitalists" travels there from out of state with a trunk full of bottles and gasoline is looking to wreck shit.  I think that both of those types of people have serious culpability.

[Brisketexan 104708]

2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Hope is a dangerous thing.

Anyway, I'll surrender the word per post count title to you today.

No you won't.  (see how short that was?)

[52-80 19101]

8 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

you know who doesn’t have a choice, the small business owner forced out of business because someone burned it down and destroyed it and he can no longer afford the insurance or ability to rebuild. He didn’t have a choice. He didn’t ask for this. He didn’t shoot Jacob Blake.

silence is violence!