Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[bad_teammate 13,138]

Hispanics eating mayo in the park? Bro do you even elote?

[Brisketexan 104,708]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I mean, sure.....I'm not the guy who has concluded, across the board, that police departments have zero agency/autonomy, and have been directed by LibrulDem Mayors to "STAND DOWN AND LET EVERYTHING BURN!".....when we know for a fact that numerous PDs make their own command and tactical decisions.

And the result of those decisions has been exactly what a gov't agency that wants absolute loyalty from the people and calls for even BIGGER budgets would want.  And for that matter, even give the benefit of the doubt -- sometimes, the right tactical decision could be to stand down.  So, maybe we should look into whether any of these PDs are making the stand-down decision on their own?  Just a couple of easy examples:

Quote

One of the main questions about Friday's protest in downtown Raleigh — where two Confederate statues were torn down by protesters — was the lack of police presence at the height of it all.

A spokeswoman for the State Capitol police said officers were told to stand down not long before protesters toppled monuments on the capitol grounds. She said the chief of State Capitol police made the call to "protect protesters, bystanders and law enforcement."

Capitol Square is executive branch territory, but a spokeswoman for Gov. Roy Cooper said the governor's office did not tell officers to stand down.

Sometimes it's a tactical decision.  Sometimes, it's a broad strategy of "de-policing," which has been rather well documented for years.

I don't want much.  Hell, I just want something like what.....those libtards at the National Review want:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/cities-need-better-policing-not-depolicing-and-riots/

Quote

The fallout from the last week’s rioting could rain down upon us for a long time. There will be lasting damage to the neighborhoods where the looting and vandalism took place.

Simultaneously, the peaceful protesters whose work was undermined by violent anarchists and greedy opportunists are correct. American cops can do better, and improving policing could prevent future unrest.

. . . . 

As the Harvard criminologist Thomas Abt detailed in his book Bleeding Out (which I reviewed here), experts have come to support two crime-cutting strategies especially, because they’ve performed well in rigorous tests: “hot spot” policing, which, like New York’s strategy, relies on deploying police to the areas where crime is up, and “focused deterrence,” which involves singling out high-risk individuals and groups for targeted interventions that involve both social services and the threat of punishment if they break the law.

There is also a strong case that detectives and prosecutors must do a better job of holding the worst offenders — murderers — accountable after the fact. This not only incapacitates the worst offenders, but also builds up the legitimacy of law enforcement, so that communities are willing to let the justice system work. Without that, crime victims and their families and friends are more likely to seek retribution themselves, as Jill Leovy detailed in her excellent book Ghettoside.

. . . . 

The members of American society most exposed to crime don’t want less policing; they want better policing.

*   *   *

In addition to doing more good things, of course, police should do fewer bad things as well. I am of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of cops do their jobs in good faith, and that the overwhelming majority of police killings are justified. But when you arm people and send them out into a community to enforce the law, you have to train them properly and hold them accountable. Otherwise they lose legitimacy, and every ambiguous incident becomes a recipe for anti-cop backlash.

All four officers involved in George Floyd’s death have been arrested and charged. Good. But there are policy changes we could make to ensure that bad cops are more frequently held to account, while continuing to give officers a fair chance to provide their side of the story.

Earlier this week, for example, I wrote about the doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which too frequently protects rogue police officers from being held liable for civil damages in federal court. Congress should change this policy, and there are efforts underway to do so.

States should also take a hard look at their criminal laws. Many states have use-of-force statutes that are embarrassingly out of date. Lawmakers might also think about how best to address situations in which an officer’s behavior and tactics leading up to a shooting were inexcusably flawed, but do not justify a murder or manslaughter charge.

States’ relationships with police unions need another look as well. Police unions don’t just negotiate pay, benefits, and normal working conditions. They also have a say in, for example, how officers are interrogated after using force — and they secure privileges for officers that other crime suspects do not get. Some unions even procure for officers “get-out-of-jail-free cards” they can dole out to family and friends to escape speeding tickets.

Lastly, we need to continually improve standard procedures and training, and to encourage departments to adopt the best practices. Departments differ in terms of what kinds of neck holds they allow in which situations, for instance, and many neck restraints can kill people unnecessarily. Regions of the country also vary immensely in terms of how often their officers resort to lethal force, even after accounting for crime rates, suggesting room for improvements.

Teaching cops the best ways to deescalate situations is always a good idea where it’s not already happening (and judging from the numerous videos of cops interacting with protesters recently, it’s not happening everywhere). Making sure cops fired from one department can’t easily end up somewhere else is a no-brainer. Heck, even Joe Biden’s idea of shooting unarmed threats in the legs instead of the torso might make sense in certain very specific situations. It would be worth funding a lot of research into the efficacy and dangers of all these tactics and more, and using the results to guide policy.

We can’t just keep having race riots every so many years in this country, and we can’t tell the police to stand down in the face of crime and disorder, either. Instead, we should build up the legitimacy of the police through proven crime-fighting strategies and a better system of accountability.

But we won't get that.

Because we don't want it.  Instead, we need to "Back the blue!" and ignore the fact that these problems involve significant questions of federal and state policy and law, and instead just say "stupid hippie mayor!"  We get this shit, and we will get more of it, because we like things the way they are.

[Incredulity 11,563]

Cui gives a shit?

[RDCanecutter 26,310]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hispanics eating mayo in the park? Bro do you even elote?

[workswithseed 2,037]

52 minutes ago, sidis said:

typing slowly here...

context: you believe this little dipshit who went looking for trouble and murdered someone as a vigilante is righteous in that he came from another town in another state armed and was "protecting" business property from protesters. Did he say he went there looking for trouble? This is the "She shouldn't be out wearing a mini skirt argument. The owner asked people to protect it, and he protected his community. Apparently he even works in Kenosha as a life guard.

 

  his atty is likening him to the american revolutionaries as part of their p.r. campaign to poison the well in a criminal prosecution, raise their profile to a national level in order to attract support (including financial) from useful idiots like yourself, and maybe even get vocal support from our mongoloid of a president.  I don't care what's said about the lawyer.

objectors here point out their perceived irony since they believe he would be more likened to a british monarchy loyalist due to his affection for an authoritarian who regularly exhibits naked corruption, nepotism, self-aggrandizing motivations, a general disdain for people who aren't from generational wealth, and an utter lack of empathy for the overwhelming majority of the population - including his own supporters.  you take exception to that by pointing out that because he was "protecting private property," he was a true blue libertarian cherishing the values and ideals set forth by the american revolutionaries. I'd say that if he's okay with government buildings being accosted and he didn't care, then I would say he wasn't very loyalist like. My argument even has him helping him the protesters with medical aid. I'd give you that he could be pissed off at the Boston Tea Party, I just don't see him being loyalist cause of it. 

 

 

[Incredulity 11,563]

Quote

I mean, sure.....I'm not the guy who has concluded, across the board, that police departments have zero agency/autonomy, and have been directed by LibrulDem Mayors to "STAND DOWN AND LET EVERYTHING BURN!".....when we know for a fact that numerous PDs make their own command and tactical decisions.

The police commisioner in Portland is..wait for it...

 

Mayor Ted Wheeler.

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/portland-mayor-will-stay-on-as-police-commissioner/

[BabaYaga 15,214]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, sure.....I'm not the guy who has concluded, across the board, that police departments have zero agency/autonomy, and have been directed by LibrulDem Mayors to "STAND DOWN AND LET EVERYTHING BURN!".

Never said a single part of that.  But then again.....you're the guy that intimated that this is a tactical decision made LE officers to help bolster their support and show how much they are needed and completely ignoring multiple examples of orders coming directly from the Mayor.  The math is easy, right....

 

[workswithseed 2,037]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The police commisioner in Portland is..wait for it...

 

Mayor Ted Wheeler.

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/portland-mayor-will-stay-on-as-police-commissioner/

It's really the only thing I agree with the anarchist. Fuck Ted Wheeler. Now, let's see what the DA does. I mean he's the reason the dude was shot in the street.

[Brisketexan 104,708]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Never said a single part of that.  But then again.....you're the guy that intimated that this is a tactical decision made LE officers to help bolster their support and show how much they are needed and completely ignoring multiple examples of orders coming directly from the Mayor.  The math is easy, right....

 

Some mayors have so ordered (Fischer, for example).  Others have not, and have expressly denied doing so.  And de-policing is a known and previously used tactic of police departments facing criticism (there are actually books written on the tactic).....but you discount that, even when we have clear pictures of police doing just that, watching violence right in front of them without lifting a finger.

Of course, to be fair, we have stacks of videos showing cops using force against people who were NOT committing violence, so I can see the confusion...https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/14/nyregion/nypd-george-floyd-protests.html

I guess the mayors ordered the cops to do that, too, right?  Since the cops don't make any tactical decisions without mayoral order.

[BabaYaga 15,214]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And de-policing is a known and previously used tactic of police departments facing criticism (there are actually books written on the tactic).

Keep charging your windmills.  De-policing is almost always a tactic of intentionally not patrolling certain areas.  A switch from active to passive patrolling and actions.  Both overt as a de factor strike, or a refusal to put yourself in a position where you could face backlash, as we saw after Ferguson or Baltimore.  In the face of full blown riots and cities burning, that's weak sauce....especially with ample evidence of multiple mayors telling officers to stand down

[sidis 9,759]

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Did he say he went there looking for trouble? This is the "She shouldn't be out wearing a mini skirt argument. The owner asked people to protect it, and he protected his community. Apparently he even works in Kenosha as a life guard.

i don't particularly care what he says.  he went into a protest armed with a rifle with the intention of intimidation.  it is not the same as the "miniskirt argument" at all.  the miniskirt argument is that a woman wore something provocative that caused someone else to commit the crime of assault/rape.  it is an idiotic, victim-shaming argument and a logical fallacy.  a non-leo citizen walking into a chaotic situation in a different town than he even lived in armed and shooting multiple people is him committing a crime.  there is no victim shaming.  he is the one that shot people.  if you believe that shooting three people is "protecting his community," then it is no wonder why you are such a confused child.

 

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I don't care what's said about the lawyer.

you entered a debate and offered a counterpoint (albeit idiotic) to the proposition that he was not what the lawyer described.

 

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'd say that if he's okay with government buildings being accosted and he didn't care, then I would say he wasn't very loyalist like. My argument even has him helping him the protesters with medical aid. I'd give you that he could be pissed off at the Boston Tea Party, I just don't see him being loyalist cause of it. 

well thank god we have that bit of insight now.  your reasoning is a+.  in my hypothetical, i spent all of my 20's having threesomes with monica bellucci and laetetia casta.

[Brisketexan 104,708]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Keep charging your windmills.  De-policing is almost always a tactic of intentionally not patrolling certain areas.  A switch from active to passive patrolling and actions.  Both overt as a de factor strike, or a refusal to put yourself in a position where you could face backlash, as we saw after Ferguson or Baltimore.  In the face of full blown riots and cities burning, that's weak sauce....especially with ample evidence of multiple mayors telling officers to stand down

....and in the face of multiple cities where the mayors did NOT issue such a stand-down order.  Yet the cops stood down.  Because.....reasons.  It's certainly appropriate to conclude that the only reasons police would stand by and watch shit go down are 1) libruldem mayors ordered them to, or 2) they made a sound tactical decision (note -- I personally believe this is most often the case), but certainly NOT 3) "let that shit burn, that'll show 'em."  I mean, option 3) is an infantile, petulant response, and we KNOW that law enforcement in the US would NEVER do that.

[GRHorn 105]

SIAP 

 

[Brisketexan 104,708]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

SIAP 

 

Yes, yes, DEFINITELY cite the Daily Caller as a source, when you and your pals decry "biased journalism!" at every turn.  That's definitely the most credible move you could make.  Wait, you also could have cited OANN or Breitbart -- we also would have accepted those as "totally credible sources with no agenda."

[huge 3,789]

I dont know what the Daily Caller is.  Am I to assume this "first hand account" was biased?

It seemed 100% plausible to me, based on the video I've seen.  Kid never should have been there 100%.  But that account seems likely to me to be about what happened.

 

What am I missing?  Besides not having a team in this dumbass fight.

[BabaYaga 15,214]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

SIAP 

 

Eye witness accounts are always so effective and never driven by bias around the current political climate

#handsupdon'tshoot....

[TwiceHorn 31,311]

14 minutes ago, huge said:

I dont know what the Daily Caller is.  Am I to assume this "first hand account" was biased?

It seemed 100% plausible to me, based on the video I've seen.  Kid never should have been there 100%.  But that account seems likely to me to be about what happened.

 

What am I missing?  Besides not having a team in this dumbass fight.

There's a legal analysis upthread (or maybe on the other Kenosha thread) by some dude who happens to be black and also some kind of gun/2A nut, but it's pretty rational.  I had my BS detector on high and it passed muster making a pretty solid self defense case for the lil shit, tracking the actual video and Wisconsin's particular self-defense statutes.

But yeah, dailycaller is in the realm of breitbart or gatewaypundit or whatever grossly biased right wing media outlet you want to name.

There's a pretty credible and unbiased/apolitical argument that the kid has a solid self-defense defense.

Edited September 2, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Armybrat 40,751]

Supposedly a NYT reporter did a clear timeline that supported the kid’s actions... except for him violating the law by carrying as a minor in the first place. 

[GRHorn 105]

26 minutes ago, huge said:

What am I missing?  Besides not having a team in this dumbass fight.

That’s pretty much it. 
 

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a legal analysis upthread (or maybe on the other Kenosha thread) by some dude who happens to be black and also some kind of gun/2A nut, but it's pretty rational.  I had my BS detector on high and it passed muster making a pretty solid self defense case for the lil shit, tracking the actual video and Wisconsin's particular self-defense statutes.

But yeah, dailycaller is in the realm of breitbart or gatewaypundit or whatever grossly biased right wing media outlet you want to name.

There's a pretty credible and unbiased/apolitical argument that the kid has a solid self-defense defense.

 

6 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Supposedly a NYT reporter did a clear timeline that supported the kid’s actions... except for him violating the law by carrying as a minor in the first place. 

Yes I saw that breakdown of it, but that was based off piecing together videos from the internet. This was the first piece I’d seen with any detailed description of events from somebody that was there. Thus the share. 
 

But, muh biased. 
 

Ultimately if people like this are willing to testify in a court of law to what they’re sharing here, then I’m not sure what a website’s bias has to do with anything.
 

A simpler explanation for any ruffled feathers is that it’s a believable retelling of events that is upsetting to certain people. Same old same old  

[huge 3,789]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

A simpler explanation for any ruffled feathers is that it’s a believable retelling of events that is upsetting to certain people. Same old same old  

It should be upsetting to everyone.

[52-80 19,101]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Again...who benefits most from violence and disorder?  Come on, you can do the math, it's pretty easy.  

Conspiracy theorists?

[Brisketexan 104,708]

1 minute ago, huge said:

It should be upsetting to everyone.

Nope.  Rittenhouse isn't a fucking idiot who went to a fight, itching for a fight, and got one, achieving the inevitable and shitty result of either 1) ending up dead or 2) making someone else end up dead.

No, he's a HERO, and perhaps one of America's greatest patriots ever, on par with the brave souls at Lexington and Concorde.  That's the position now - get on board, or get out of here you America-hating commie.

[Brisketexan 104,708]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Conspiracy theorists?

You mean the same people who cite chartered buses and planes full of uniformed ANTIFA shock troops, paid by (((Soros))) shuttling around the country?  Those conspiracy theorists?

Edited September 2, 2020 by Brisketexan

[atomheartbevo 89,465]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Nope.  Rittenhouse isn't a fucking idiot who went to a fight, itching for a fight, and got one, achieving the inevitable and shitty result of either 1) ending up dead or 2) making someone else end up dead.

No, he's a HERO, and perhaps one of America's greatest patriots ever, on par with the brave souls at Lexington and Concorde.  That's the position now - get on board, or get out of here you America-hating commie.

The fact that his lawyer is pushing such an insane point-of-view automatically makes me think he is on shaky legal ground.

Put aside that he was not legally allowed to be carrying, and was not legally allowed to be out at that time, and was not even in his own state.

His lawyer is out there bleating to the media and public that his actions put him on part with British colonial rebels in the 1770s.

But it's 2020.  So of course somebody in this situation has a lawyer saying they are starting another revolution.  Even though the side he opposes also thinks they are starting a revolution.

If Joe Exotic ran for President this year, he'd pull in millions of votes.

[immortal13 4,059]

4 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Can you not protect others property? Should I watch as my nieghbor's property gets burned?

Yes you damn sure can. Brisket just doesn't want to admit that this kid broke zero laws, even though he knows the truth. He would rather support the violent protest movement, because, after all, everything else has already been tried. Violence, looting and destruction is all that's left to try

Edited September 2, 2020 by immortal13

[BabaYaga 15,214]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

Yes you damn sure can. Brisket just doesn't want to admit that this kid broke zero laws, even though he knows the truth. He would rather support the violent protest movement. Because, after all, everything else has already been tried. Violence, looting and destruction is all that's left to try

He's only guilty of carrying under the age of 18.  

[immortal13 4,059]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Loves showing up with a rifle to deal with "the mob."  Definitely a loyalist.

The mob had guns

[Brisketexan 104,708]

5 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Yes you damn sure can. Brisket just doesn't want to admit that this kid broke zero laws, even though he knows the truth. He would rather support the violent protest movement, because, after all, everything else has already been tried. Violence, looting and destruction is all that's left to try

I mean, other than the fact that I've stated repeatedly that I don't support either rioters or people who take it upon themselves to be vigilantes and create the (fulfilled) risk of deadly confrontation, sure, solid straw man.  Please continue.

Oh, and I don't yet know whether Rittenhouse has a good self defense case or not, because it all comes down to how the initial confrontation began, which we don't yet have great facts on.  I think he probably has a good self-defense case on the second and third shootings, from what we can see, but again, that may well hinge on whether the first shooting was legitimately self-defense or not - you can't avail yourself of self-defense against pursuers if what you are fleeing is a crime that you committed.

The one thing I know for sure is that he is not a hero in any way, shape, or form.  He made a foolish decision to show up and turn a tense situation into a gunfight, and he succeeded.  His presence created a greater risk of loss of life, it didn't lessen it.

[immortal13 4,059]

Well it looks like asshole number one has plenty of video showing he was instigating, besides the fact that he's no longer available to give his story. 

[Captainant 27,481]

Pretty amazing that it took yall a whole week to fully digest the company line and start shitting it out at us as if it were fact. Just as a friendly reminder from planet Earth, here's what the right-wing extremist child shooter is charged with:

1	940.02(1)	1st-Degree Reckless Homicide	Felony B
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
2	941.30(1)	1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety	Felony F
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
3	940.01(1)(a)	1st-Degree Intentional Homicide	Felony A
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
4	940.01(1)(a)	Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide	Felony A
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
5	941.30(1)	1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety	Felony F
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
6	948.60(2)(a)	Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18	Misd. A

So if yall are arguing absent any sort of substantiated factual record that rittenhouse "dindonuffin", then yall are some dense useful idiots.

[workswithseed 2,037]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

i don't particularly care what he says.  he went into a protest armed with a rifle with the intention of intimidation.  it is not the same as the "miniskirt argument" at all.  the miniskirt argument is that a woman wore something provocative that caused someone else to commit the crime of assault/rape.  it is an idiotic, victim-shaming argument and a logical fallacy.  a non-leo citizen walking into a chaotic situation in a different town than he even lived in armed and shooting multiple people is him committing a crime.  there is no victim shaming.  he is the one that shot people.  if you believe that shooting three people is "protecting his community," then it is no wonder why you are such a confused child.

 

you entered a debate and offered a counterpoint (albeit idiotic) to the proposition that he was not what the lawyer described.

 

well thank god we have that bit of insight now.  your reasoning is a+.  in my hypothetical, i spent all of my 20's having threesomes with monica bellucci and laetetia casta.

If you want to go with that, then yeah, the intimidation didn't work when the dude chased him and tried to grab the gun. If you don't think someone grabbing a weapon out of your hands when you did nothing illegal up to that point, then you must be naive. 

 

[immortal13 4,059]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Pretty amazing that it took yall a whole week to fully digest the company line and start shitting it out at us as if it were fact. Just as a friendly reminder from planet Earth, here's what the right-wing extremist child shooter is charged with:

1	940.02(1)	1st-Degree Reckless Homicide	Felony B
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
2	941.30(1)	1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety	Felony F
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
3	940.01(1)(a)	1st-Degree Intentional Homicide	Felony A
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
4	940.01(1)(a)	Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide	Felony A
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
5	941.30(1)	1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety	Felony F
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
6	948.60(2)(a)	Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18	Misd. A

So if yall are arguing absent any sort of substantiated factual record that rittenhouse "dindonuffin", then yall are some dense useful idiots.

Yeah cause nobody ever gets charged with crimes they didn't commit. Lmao dumbass

[BabaYaga 15,214]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Pretty amazing that it took yall a whole week to fully digest the company line and start shitting it out at us as if it were fact. Just as a friendly reminder from planet Earth, here's what the right-wing extremist child shooter is charged with:

1	940.02(1)	1st-Degree Reckless Homicide	Felony B
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
2	941.30(1)	1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety	Felony F
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
3	940.01(1)(a)	1st-Degree Intentional Homicide	Felony A
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
4	940.01(1)(a)	Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide	Felony A
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
5	941.30(1)	1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety	Felony F
Modifier:	939.63(1)(b)	Use of a Dangerous Weapon
6	948.60(2)(a)	Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18	Misd. A

So if yall are arguing absent any sort of substantiated factual record that rittenhouse "dindonuffin", then yall are some dense useful idiots.

Hey, it's Sandy Vag.  Hey Sandy?  What's that?  A presumption of guilt based solely on the charges?  While waiting, here's a good movie you should check out

 

[immortal13 4,059]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If you want to go with that, then yeah, the intimidation didn't work when the dude chased him and tried to grab the gun. If you don't think someone grabbing a weapon out of your hands when you did nothing illegal up to that point, then you must be naive. 

 

The child-molesting, dumpster burner?

[hayden_horn 11,360]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a legal analysis upthread (or maybe on the other Kenosha thread) by some dude who happens to be black and also some kind of gun/2A nut, but it's pretty rational.  I had my BS detector on high and it passed muster making a pretty solid self defense case for the lil shit, tracking the actual video and Wisconsin's particular self-defense statutes.

But yeah, dailycaller is in the realm of breitbart or gatewaypundit or whatever grossly biased right wing media outlet you want to name.

There's a pretty credible and unbiased/apolitical argument that the kid has a solid self-defense defense.

yeah, daily caller is trash. however, i kind of believe their version of events. 

this is where i came down earlier in the thread, and it's a similar view to what went down here in austin. the shooter might have felt the right to self-defense. but had he not brought a gun to a chaotic situation, no matter his motivations (he thought he was there to be a law and order influence), people are still alive. the very presence of him there with a gun, around other people with guns, actually does more to inflame people than it does to cow them. and, as the person with the gun, you got to make sure you have control of where you are aiming it. that's where the chaotic part of the situation comes in, and is also why you shouldn't bring a gun to a protest. someone feels that you threatened them because your barrel points in their direction, and shit can go sideways fucking quick. you may be rushing to put out a tire fire, but if you've ever had a gun pointed at you, you know it changes your perspective. when i was in high school, i was at a friend's house, and he pulled out his father's gun and pointed it at me as a joke. it was not remotely funny, that shit is scary. and that was among friends, not amongst strangers in an emotionally charged situation. this dude is brandishing a gun; it's not strapped to his back or over his shoulder. his trigger discipline looks strong, but when the sun goes down, that becomes less evident. it's a sad situation all around.

but in the end, had he not followed some call up for a fake militia, drove to kenosha, either brought a gun or procured one from a friend, and inserted himself into a situation, his life is not in turmoil, and people are still alive. you can value-judge the all the characters in this drama, but the gun is the key. had he done all the things, except the gun, there is an entirely different outcome here. 

[dcar00 14,036]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

Yeah cause nobody ever gets charged with crimes they didn't commit. Lmao dumbass

Guilty as charged, sir!!

[Captainant 27,481]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Hey, it's Sandy Vag.  Hey Sandy?  What's that?  A presumption of guilt based solely on the charges?  While waiting, here's a good movie you should check out

 

that movie is obviously a work of fiction because the black guy is actually able to defend himself in court and wasn't executed in daylight on camera by the police on suspicion of selling loose cigs or using a counterfeit $20

 

and the double standard yall are poising for the white suburbanite kid vs black folks at large is a pretty nice encapsulation of what's wrong with America today. So well done, at least.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Captainant

[immortal13 4,059]

I mean, in my opinion, setting a dumpster on fire and trying to push it into gas pumps is sort of terroristic. Good riddance to the chikd-molester. Guess he should've been more careful what he wished for.

[Goredho 17,354]

3 hours ago, sidis said:

i have to be honest.  you, 2 out of every 3 @Hank Scorpio posts, trading music stuff with @Goredho, occasionally checking out food pron from @Jack Straw and @Anastasis, and @milkman's wine consumption logs are the primary reasons i read stuff here.

at least until we are good enough to start beating ohio state, oklahoma, and alabama at football again.  been a long fucking decade.

You complete me (or at least my masters)

[dcar00 14,036]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

that movie is obviously a work of fiction because the black guy is actually able to defend himself in court and wasn't executed in daylight on camera by the police on suspicion of selling loose cigs or using a counterfeit $20

 

and the double standard yall are poising for the white suburbanite kid vs black folks at large is a pretty nice encapsulation of what's wrong with America today. So well done, at least.

hey a shout out from captainsandyvag!

[immortal13 4,059]

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Guilty as charged, sir!!

The allegations are the proof!!

 

I actually had a cop tell me that once...direct quote. He ended up being wrong. Shocking, I know.

 

[hayden_horn 11,360]

3 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I mean, in my opinion, setting a dumpster on fire and trying to push it into gas pumps is sort of terroristic. Good riddance to the chikd-molester. Guess he should've been more careful what he wished for.

child molester? link?

[BabaYaga 15,214]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

that movie is obviously a work of fiction because the black guy is actually able to defend himself in court and wasn't executed in daylight on camera by the police on suspicion of selling loose cigs or using a counterfeit $20

 

and the double standard yall are poising for the white suburbanite kid vs black folks at large is a pretty nice encapsulation of what's wrong with America today. So well done, at least.

It's confirmed, you are completely fucking retarded.  LOL....

[immortal13 4,059]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, daily caller is trash. however, i kind of believe their version of events. 

this is where i came down earlier in the thread, and it's a similar view to what went down here in austin. the shooter might have felt the right to self-defense. but had he not brought a gun to a chaotic situation, no matter his motivations (he thought he was there to be a law and order influence), people are still alive. the very presence of him there with a gun, around other people with guns, actually does more to inflame people than it does to cow them. and, as the person with the gun, you got to make sure you have control of where you are aiming it. that's where the chaotic part of the situation comes in, and is also why you shouldn't bring a gun to a protest. someone feels that you threatened them because your barrel points in their direction, and shit can go sideways fucking quick. you may be rushing to put out a tire fire, but if you've ever had a gun pointed at you, you know it changes your perspective. when i was in high school, i was at a friend's house, and he pulled out his father's gun and pointed it at me as a joke. it was not remotely funny, that shit is scary. and that was among friends, not amongst strangers in an emotionally charged situation. this dude is brandishing a gun; it's not strapped to his back or over his shoulder. his trigger discipline looks strong, but when the sun goes down, that becomes less evident. it's a sad situation all around.

but in the end, had he not followed some call up for a fake militia, drove to kenosha, either brought a gun or procured one from a friend, and inserted himself into a situation, his life is not in turmoil, and people are still alive. you can value-judge the all the characters in this drama, but the gun is the key. had he done all the things, except the gun, there is an entirely different outcome here. 

If and buts...

Edited September 2, 2020 by immortal13

[dcar00 14,036]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

child molester? link?

something in arizona when he was 19 and the girl was 15...

[immortal13 4,059]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

child molester? link?

read the thread. He's a registered sex offender 

[Captainant 27,481]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

hey a shout out from captainsandyvag!

I do appreciate the love and ample free space living rent-free in yall's heads. Any other tired, lazy, or borrowed nicknames you've been workshopping lately?

[dcar00 14,036]

Just now, Captainant said:

I do appreciate the love and ample free space living rent-free in yall's heads. Any other tired, lazy, or borrowed nicknames you've been workshopping lately?

nope, that one pretty much covers it.

[sidis 9,759]

12 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If you want to go with that, then yeah, the intimidation didn't work when the dude chased him and tried to grab the gun. If you don't think someone grabbing a weapon out of your hands when you did nothing illegal up to that point, then you must be naive. 

 

so it appears you have again shifted your argument...this time from your insinuation that i was using the miniskirt argument as it related to the shooter to now he didn't do a good job of intimidating people because he had to shoot them...with a little factually inaccurate predicate that he had "done nothing illegal up to that point."

[bolverk 29,418]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

when i was in high school, i was at a friend's house, and he pulled out his father's gun and pointed it at me as a joke. it was not remotely funny, that shit is scary. and that was among friends, not amongst strangers in an emotionally charged situation.

Same exact thing happened to me but in middle school. I still vividly recall that moment when a shiver went up my spine and suddenly feeling ice cold. He was my best friend at the time and, man, was I boiling over after he put back in his dad's closet.