Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[TwiceHorn 31311]

35 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  Medic guy is the most interesting. There is a video just after Rittenhouse takes off running that is from Medic guy streaming. He is running kind of next to but slightly behind him and asking him what happened, and if he just shot someone. Rittenhouse says something back and that's when they all start yelling to get him. If he was just looking to shoot Rittenhouse he had every opportunity to do so.

I didn't catch that part.

What I meant though was that a lot of the condemnation of Rittenhouse is the simple fact that he went packing to a protest.  And I agree that is horribad idea jeans and a cause in fact of the whole incident.

So, if you are going to condemn Rittenhouse for that, seems like you have to condemn the other "protest medic" for the same thing, and question his motives, as well.

[Thatguy 8538]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I didn't catch that part.

What I meant though was that a lot of the condemnation of Rittenhouse is the simple fact that he went packing to a protest.  And I agree that is horribad idea jeans and a cause in fact of the whole incident.

So, if you are going to condemn Rittenhouse for that, seems like you have to condemn the other "protest medic" for the same thing, and question his motives, as well.

   Not true at all. I am not totally sure because there was no video evidence, but I heard the Medic guy was concealed. He didn't brandish until he intended to use it. Rittenhouse was walking around pointing his gun at people. There was an interview of some guy who said that he did so in one of the local papers. However, if that is not to be believed, due to it coming AFTER the incident. Check out the 3:08 mark of this video. As Rittenhouse is talking to the Daily Caller journalist about being an EMT. He is called out by a bystander about pointing his firearm at him earlier. This would make sense, as red shirt guy was screaming the same thing. The Daily Caller journalist also stated that the kid wasn't handling his firearm correctly. So I would say that Rittenhouse's role did far more to incite violence.

 

   Lastly, I am interested in what footage the Daily Caller guy has. He can be seen running behind Rosenbaum right when he gets shot and filming the action. I bet he has a lot of pretty damning evidence.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Thatguy

[workswithseed 2034]

What video?

[Deej 76584]

So, wait, the white guy who told him to "shoot me, n***a" was there fighting for BLM? Lulz. 

[Thatguy 8538]

10 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

What video?

I added it. Sorry about that.

[Captainant 27481]

48 minutes ago, Deej said:

So, wait, the white guy who told him to "shoot me, n***a" was there fighting for BLM? Lulz. 

I find it absurd and telling that you assign more blame to the person who was shot than the person who pulled the trigger

[Deej 76584]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I find it absurd and telling that you assign more blame to the person who was shot than the person who pulled the trigger

I am not assigning blame.

If you are there supporting BLM and tossing out the N word, it makes me wonder what your motive for being there was. 

But you keep being overly sensitive, Captain Taint. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Deej

[Captainant 27481]

7 minutes ago, Deej said:

I am not assigning blame.

If you are there supporting BLM and tossing out the N word, it makes me wonder what your motive for being there was. 

But you keep being overly sensitive, Captain Taint. 

But going out with a rifle and filling your social media with hate just means you were looking to exercise your rights and definitely not murder someone. Just ignore his classmates interviews saying he would be the next school shooter, etc etc. 

Keep on name calling though, I'm sure eventually one of yall will come up with something clever again. Maybe y'all just need some more folks to be murdered by right wing  extremists to really get the creative juices flowing, it's when y'all do your best work apparently

[Deej 76584]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

But going out with a rifle and filling your social media with hate just means you were looking to exercise your rights and definitely not murder someone. Just ignore his classmates interviews saying he would be the next school shooter, etc etc. 

Keep on name calling though, I'm sure eventually one of yall will come up with something clever again. Maybe y'all just need some more folks to be murdered by right wing  extremists to really get the creative juices flowing, it's when y'all do your best work apparently

Where did I say that dumbass shooter was in the right?

Explain to me how a guy throwing out that word was supporting black people?

Seems to me he was mighty comfortable using that term. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Deej

[bad_teammate 13139]

3 minutes ago, Deej said:

Explain to me how a guy throwing out that word was supporting black people?

I don't know that this guy cares much about any policies or philosophies. He might just hate cops. Broke-ass, poorly-educated people of all colors using the n-word isn't uncommon and not necessarily indicative of any special racial hostility.

[XYZ 2154]

14 minutes ago, Deej said:

Where did I say that dumbass shooter was in the right?

Explain to me how a guy throwing out that word was supporting black people?

Seems to me he was mighty comfortable using that term. 

One thing you have to keep in mind about captain antifa is that everything has to be kept nice and binary and simple for him. If a 737 max goes down, it HAS to be the plane or it HAS to be the pilots. It can’t be both. If an asshole kills another asshole, asshole #1 HAS to be the asshole or asshole #2 HAS to be the asshole. Anything more nuanced than that is just too much.

[Thatguy 8538]

18 minutes ago, Deej said:

Where did I say that dumbass shooter was in the right?

Explain to me how a guy throwing out that word was supporting black people?

Seems to me he was mighty comfortable using that term. 

As a Black dude I give him the hood seal of approval for proper use of the word. No hard R, and slung it at another person of his own ethnicity.

[Thatguy 8538]

2 minutes ago, XYZ said:

One thing you have to keep in mind about captain antifa is that everything has to be kept nice and binary and simple for him. If a 737 max goes down, it HAS to be the plane or it HAS to be the pilots. It can’t be both. If an asshole kills another asshole, asshole #1 HAS to be the asshole or asshole #2 HAS to be the asshole. Anything more nuanced than that is just too much.

  So if asshole 1 points a gun at asshole 2 and asshole 2 gets mad and charges asshole 1, then asshole 1 shoots asshole 2....who is the bigger asshole?

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I find it absurd and telling that you assign more blame to the person who was shot than the person who pulled the trigger

I find you absurd

[McFly 606]

Arizona - Department of Corrections Detail

Last Name ROSENBAUM	First Name JOSEPH	Middle Name D
Gender MALE	Height 63	Weight 130
Hair BLOND	Eyes HAZEL	Ethnic Origin CAUCASIAN
Custody Class Medium/Moderate	Admission Date 08/09/2016	Prison Release Date 02/18/2017
Release Type COMM SUP END DT	Complex ADC PAROLE DIVISION	Unit ADC PAROLE DIVISION
Last Movement Date 02/18/2017	Status INACTIVE	Custody Risk Active Classification
Internal Risk Initial Classification

 

Sentences

 

Sentence Date 1 08/05/2016	Sentence 1 2 Y/ 6 M/ 0 D	Sentence County 1 PIMA
Court Cause 1 20143306001	Offense Date 1 07/29/2014	Sentence Status 1 IMPOSED
Crime 1 INTERF MONITOR DEVICE

 

Sentence Date 2 06/10/2013	Sentence 2 2 Y/ 6 M/ 0 D	Sentence County 2 PIMA
Court Cause 2 20021139001	Offense Date 2 03/27/2002	Sentence Status 2 IMPOSED

 

Sentence Date 2 06/10/2013	Sentence 3 10 Y/ 0 M/ 0 D	Sentence County 3 PIMA
Court Cause 3 20021139	Offense Date 3 03/27/2002	Sentence Status 3 IMPOSED
Crime 3 SEXUAL CONDUCT W MINOR

 

Parole

 

Parole Custody Date 1 10/19/2016	Parole Class Type 1 TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING RELEASE	Parole Approved Date 1
Parole Next Review Date 1	Parole Class 1 R

 

Parole Custody Date 2 08/29/2016	Parole Class Type 2 TR INELIGIBLE	Parole Approved Date 2
Parole Next Review Date 2	Parole Class 2 0

 

Parole Custody Date 3 08/10/2016	Parole Class Type 3 INITIAL CL.	Parole Approved Date 3 08/10/2016
Parole Next Review Date 3 08/10/2017	Parole Class 3

 

[52-80 19104]

and now his watch has ended

[Dahobbs 17454]

9 hours ago, McFly said:

Arizona - Department of Corrections Detail

 

Last Name ROSENBAUM	First Name JOSEPH	Middle Name D
Gender MALE	Height 63	Weight 130
Hair BLOND	Eyes HAZEL	Ethnic Origin CAUCASIAN
Custody Class Medium/Moderate	Admission Date 08/09/2016	Prison Release Date 02/18/2017
Release Type COMM SUP END DT	Complex ADC PAROLE DIVISION	Unit ADC PAROLE DIVISION
Last Movement Date 02/18/2017	Status INACTIVE	Custody Risk Active Classification
Internal Risk Initial Classification

 

Sentences

 

Sentence Date 1 08/05/2016	Sentence 1 2 Y/ 6 M/ 0 D	Sentence County 1 PIMA
Court Cause 1 20143306001	Offense Date 1 07/29/2014	Sentence Status 1 IMPOSED
Crime 1 INTERF MONITOR DEVICE

 

Sentence Date 2 06/10/2013	Sentence 2 2 Y/ 6 M/ 0 D	Sentence County 2 PIMA
Court Cause 2 20021139001	Offense Date 2 03/27/2002	Sentence Status 2 IMPOSED

 

Sentence Date 2 06/10/2013	Sentence 3 10 Y/ 0 M/ 0 D	Sentence County 3 PIMA
Court Cause 3 20021139	Offense Date 3 03/27/2002	Sentence Status 3 IMPOSED
Crime 3 SEXUAL CONDUCT W MINOR

 

Parole

 

Parole Custody Date 1 10/19/2016	Parole Class Type 1 TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING RELEASE	Parole Approved Date 1
Parole Next Review Date 1	Parole Class 1 R

 

Parole Custody Date 2 08/29/2016	Parole Class Type 2 TR INELIGIBLE	Parole Approved Date 2
Parole Next Review Date 2	Parole Class 2 0

 

Parole Custody Date 3 08/10/2016	Parole Class Type 3 INITIAL CL.	Parole Approved Date 3 08/10/2016
Parole Next Review Date 3 08/10/2017	Parole Class 3

 

I keep bringing this up, but please look at the the dates. Assuming it is the same guy (appears to be, but I haven't seen confirmation of it), it looks like he was 18 (offense was in early 2002, so it makes him 18 since he was 36 when he died) and the girl was 15+ (15, 16 or 17). We don't know her full age that I know of. Appears for the all the world to be criminalization of a high school sexual encounter based on a statutory rape law. There may be something more about the circumstances to justify a 10-year sentence, but, again, not a child molester as others keep saying. 

[JBJ 3649]

What we know from the 10-year sentence is that his victim was 15 or under.

Edited September 4, 2020 by JBJ

[Dahobbs 17454]

12 minutes ago, JBJ said:

We know from the 10-year sentence his victim was 15 or under.

No we don't. The classification is listed as felony 3. Under 15 would be felony 2. Bigger numbers are less serious in Arizona. But, I haven't looked into the law's history, so there could have been changes since 2002. 

Just realized that the portion above doesn't list the felony classification. I've posted it before from another source, and it showed felony 3.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Poe It Up 126]

Defending a child rapist, god you guys are sick fucks. 

[Dahobbs 17454]

Just now, Poe It Up said:

Defending a child rapist, god you guys are sick fucks. 

You literally know nothing about the case. It appears to be a conviction of an 18-year old having sex with someone between 15 and 17. That isn't a "child rapist." 

[Poe It Up 126]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

You literally know nothing about the case. It appears to be a conviction of an 18-year old having sex with someone between 15 and 17. That isn't a "child rapist." 

Like I said, you’re a sick fuck. 

[Dahobbs 17454]

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Like I said, you’re a sick fuck. 

Did you have sex in high school? 

[Incredulity 11564]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Did you have sex in high school? 

No, no never IN the high school.

[Dahobbs 17454]

Just for reference, here is the statute as it existed in 2002:

"§ 13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classifications

A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age.

B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is the minor's parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian or foster parent and the convicted person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by § 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted."
 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Oops

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Doc Reeves

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

No we don't. The classification is listed as felony 3. Under 15 would be felony 2. Bigger numbers are less serious in Arizona. But, I haven't looked into the law's history, so there could have been changes since 2002. 

Just realized that the portion above doesn't list the felony classification. I've posted it before from another source, and it showed felony 3.

I'll take your word that's the class.  Statutory rape 15+ is Class 6, so that's not it either.

I'm not going to go through AZ sex crimes, but probably some type of aggravated sexual assault against 15-17yo.  10 years is definitely an aggravated offense (elevated sentence) - not diddling around with the sophomore girl.

His sentence also got commuted by statute, so who knows?

Edited September 4, 2020 by JBJ

[dcar00 14036]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Just for reference, here is the statute as it existed in 2002:

"§ 13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classifications

A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age.

B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is the minor's parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian or foster parent and the convicted person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by § 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted."
 

10 years for something consensual between an 18 year old and 15+ year old seems odd.  could there have been an original charge that was more egregious?

[Dahobbs 17454]

20 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I'll take your word that's the class.  Statutory rape 15+ is Class 6, so that's not it either.

I'm not going to go through AZ sex crimes, but probably some type of aggravated sexual assault against 15-17yo.  10 years is definitely an aggravated offense - not diddling around with the sophomore girl.

There must have been an aggravating factor under another statute, but without having records of the underlying case, there isn't really a way to know. 

19 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

10 years for something consensual between an 18 year old and 15+ year old seems odd.  could there have been an original charge that was more egregious?

I assume @JBJ is correct and there is some aggravating factor. My assumption is that it has to do with consent, but it is honestly hard to say. In 2003, shortly after Rosenbaum's conviction, Arizona's Supreme Court overturned a conviction under a related statute as unconstitutional in violation of the eight amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. That case presents a good example of why I generally hate these sorts of laws: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/867512/state-v-davis/

Some key portions below:

Quote

 

We granted review in this case to decide whether sentencing a twenty-year-old defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifty-two years without the possibility of parole for having voluntary sex with two post-pubescent teenage girls is so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We hold that it is.

FACTS[1]

¶ 2 In January 1999, thirteen-year-old T.E. and her stepsister, C.M., snuck out of their house at night to meet nineteen-year-old Jason in a local park. Jason drove the girls to the home of Defendant Anthony Davis, where they met Davis and two other young men. The six young people socialized for some time. During the conversation, Davis told the girls that he was twenty, and T.E. said she was fourteen. Later that night, Davis and T.E. had sex. This was not T.E.'s first sexual encounter; she testified that she had first had sex when she was twelve years old, and she knew what Davis was doing.

* * *

¶ 8 Throughout the case, Davis denied ever having sex with T.E., but admitted having sex with P.T. on three occasions. He claimed that P.T. initially told him she was eighteen, but told him she was sixteen the day after the babysitting incident. Davis testified that he did not have sex with P.T. after learning that she was only sixteen.

¶ 9 The jury convicted Davis on all four counts. Upon discovering that the minimum sentence that Davis could receive was fifty-two years, all twelve jurors submitted a note to the trial judge stating their belief that "the punishment for the crime is excessive." Two jurors submitted individual letters expressing their dismay and strong belief that the potential sentences for Davis were too harsh. The probation officer who prepared Davis's pre-sentence report acknowledged that while Davis should be held accountable for his crimes, the mandatory sentence was not warranted. The pre-sentence report also noted that neither T.E.'s mother nor P.T.'s mother wished to see Davis sentenced to a long prison term. Even the prosecutor recommended a mitigated prison sentence and agreed that Davis should be allowed to petition the Board of Executive Clemency for a commutation of his sentence.

¶ 10 The trial judge apparently agreed because he stated at sentencing that all of the charges were "legally non-dangerous and non-repetitive offenses notwithstanding the nomenclature set forth in the charges." He also entered a special order allowing Davis to petition the Board of Executive Clemency for a commutation of sentence within ninety days of sentencing. See A.R.S. § 13-603(L) (Supp.2002) (allowing such an order if the judge believes "that a sentence that the law requires the court to impose is clearly excessive"). Nonetheless, as required by statute, the trial judge sentenced Davis to fifty-two years in prison.

* * *

 

¶ 36 Davis was sentenced to serve fifty-two years in prison for having non-coerced sex with two post-pubescent teenage girls. This strikes the courtas it did the jurors, the trial judge, the pre-sentence report writer, and the girls' mothersas an extraordinarily long sentence. Many of the factors deemed important in determining that Bartlett's sentence was disproportionate to his crimes are also present here: (1) Davis's sexual relations with the girls involved neither actual nor threatened violence; *72 in each instance the girls knew what they were doing and willingly participated. Indeed, the victims sought Davis out; all acts occurred after the victims went voluntarily to Davis's home. (2) Davis does not have an adult criminal record, nor has he committed any previous crimes against children. (3) Post-pubescent sexual conduct appears to be no less common today than it was in 1990.[5] (4) There is evidence in the record that Davis's intelligence and maturity level fell far below that of a normal young adult. (5) Like Bartlett, Davis was caught in the very broad sweep of the governing statute, which makes any sexual conduct with a person younger than fifteen years old by a person older than eighteen years old a "dangerous crime against children," whether the offense is a rape-incest by a step-parent who forces sex on a trusting ward or a pedophile who uncontrollably preys upon young children, see State v. Taylor, 160 Ariz. 415, 773 P.2d 974 (1989), or the more benign boyfriend-girlfriend situation in which one party is older than eighteen and the other younger than fifteen.

¶ 37 We recognize society's strong interest in protecting children and understand and appreciate that it is the legislature's province to assess the appropriate punishment for crimes against children. But we cannot say that all incidents of sexual conduct are of equal seriousness and pose the same threat to their victims or to society. The broad range of offenses encompassed by the statute under which Davis was charged, coupled with the legislature's command in A.R.S. § 13-4037(B) and the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, impose on us the duty to apply the law to the specific facts of the cases that come before us to determine the constitutionality of sentences imposed. After conducting that review, we conclude that Davis's conduct was swept up in the broad statutory terms, which, in turn, triggered the mandatory sentences imposed. The trial judge, the jury, the pre-sentence report writer, and even the victims' mothers all recognized the injustice of sentencing Davis to a fifty-two-year prison sentence with no possibility of early release for the crimes at issue in this case. We cannot ignore that injustice. While recognizing that many sex crimes against children may well justify such a sentence, others do not. We conclude that given the circumstances of Davis's offenses, the sentence imposed in this case appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crimes.

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Dahobbs

[JBJ 3649]

16 hours ago, Captainant said:

I find it absurd and telling that you assign more blame to the person who was shot than the person who pulled the trigger

It's far more absurd to blame the person acting in self-defense.  What does that tell us about you?

Edited September 4, 2020 by JBJ

[Captainant 27481]

28 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's far more absurd to blame the person acting in self-defense.  What does that tell us about you?

That the child who brought a rifle to a protest may not have needed to self defense someone if he hadn't escalated the potential for violence. 

I've got no issues with defending your own property with force. I do have issues with a 17 year old wannabe cop using a rifle he is too young to legally own to defend someone else's property that he has no interest in, and ultimately killing someone. Both the victim and the shooter are culpable, but for rittenhouse bringing a rifle there wouldn't have been a story here

[JBJ 3649]

Do you believe it is immoral to protect someone else's property?

[Fondren & Main 6674]

5 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

Like I said, you’re a sick fuck. 

I'm reading that he molested and sodomized multiple boys of the ages 9-11.  You're right and if I could double or triple rep you I would.  I hope the cocksucker is roasting/barbecuing for all eternity.  Good riddance to a trash ass bastard!

[Fondren & Main 6674]

17 hours ago, immortal13 said:

I find you absurd

I put that fucking simpleton on ignore.  I've added a few more of his dumbfuck compadres today too.  There are a lot of stupid ass milquetoast motherfuckers that post on this site.  It's pretty great that they're revealing themselves too.

[Thatguy 8538]

11 hours ago, JBJ said:

Do you believe it is immoral to protect someone else's property?

  In this instance, yes. What the hell is wrong with you people? How can you look past all the mistakes this kid made? Are you his mom? Are you a battered wife of this guy?

[workswithseed 2034]

11 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  In this instance, yes. What the hell is wrong with you people? How can you look past all the mistakes this kid made? Are you his mom? Are you a battered wife of this guy?

Apparently you're the battered wife of skateboard dude. 

[Armybrat 40751]

Anyone openly carrying an AR rifle or shotgun to a late night demonstration is an idiot, same as the ones who pack a capitol to protest.

[Parliament 14146]

Woah there, Son. Take your levity somewhere else!

[Thatguy 8538]

6 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Apparently you're the battered wife of skateboard dude. 

  No. I am a Black Dude who is smart enough to not think that openly carrying an AR15 at a protest is a good thing. Only privileged people would think that was going to work out, and how exactly has that worked out the two times we've seen it Workswithweed?

[Thatguy 8538]

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  No. I am a Black Dude who is smart enough to not think that openly carrying an AR15 at a protest is a good thing. Only privileged people would think that was going to work out, and how exactly has that worked out the two times we've seen it Workswithweed?

post needs more keywords...   Neither of those descriptors/ qualifiers are relevant in the discussion of what happened in Kenosha, with regard to the thread.

Edited September 5, 2020 by slorch

[dcar00 14036]

14 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

  No. I am a Black Dude who is smart enough to not think that openly carrying an AR15 at a protest is a good thing. Only privileged people would think that was going to work out, and how exactly has that worked out the two times we've seen it Workswithweed?

we've only seen 2 people carry AR15's to a protest?   what does you being black have to do with this?  were the stone mountain guys privileged?

[Doc Reeves 6434]

29 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

. Only privileged people would think that was going to work out, 

As much as people scoff at white privilege examples, this is a pretty good point

[dcar00 14036]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Except black people did too.

and then accidentally shot themselves...

[Doc Reeves 6434]

10 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Except black people did too. Oddly, all people shot to this point were shot by people of the same race.

Privilege.

I’m not trying to pass judgment on these specific events, just point out the assertion that the discord that some people feel more confident in doing things than others is in itself privilege. 
 
If you’ve ever said something along lines of “why, what the fuck are they gonna do?” there’s a pretty good chance you are in a specific social strata. 

[RDCanecutter 26314]

Everything else aside, once Rittenhouse was on the scene in Kenosha, what got his tail in a crack was the lack of any real training, and that militia not being a real unit that stuck together. Instead, Rittenhouse somehow peels off on his own as an individual, chased by another individual. Yeah, he knows how to shoot. He doesn't know anything else.

If he or his new buddies had worked like a unit, probably they could have done what they set out to do, covered each others' backs, and not shot anybody. We'd file them away with the Chipotle long gun nuts.

Rittenhouse and his friends would have picked this working-as-a-team concept up by the first week of Basic, second week if they were a bit slow.

 

[Thatguy 8538]

31 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

we've only seen 2 people carry AR15's to a protest?   what does you being black have to do with this?  were the stone mountain guys privileged?

   not A protest.....these protests. Not all protests are the same. Read the room and climate. Also, the post I responded to asked if I was the battered wife of the dead Skateboarder, so I explained to him who I am. My race is part of that.

 

4 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

I’m not trying to pass judgment on these specific events, just point out the assertion that the discord that some people feel more confident in doing things than others is in itself privilege. 
 
If you’ve ever said something along lines of “why, what the fuck are they gonna do?” there’s a pretty good chance you are in a specific social strata. 

   This is correct, and exactly what I mean.

[Thatguy 8538]

5 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Everything else aside, once Rittenhouse was on the scene in Kenosha, what got his tail in a crack was the lack of any real training, and that militia not being a real unit that stuck together. Instead, Rittenhouse somehow peels off on his own as an individual, chased by another individual. Yeah, he knows how to shoot. He doesn't know anything else.

If he or his new buddies had worked like a unit, probably they could have done what they set out to do, covered each others' backs, and not shot anybody. We'd file them away with the Chipotle long gun nuts.

Rittenhouse and his friends would have picked this working-as-a-team concept up by the first week of Basic, second week if they were a bit slow.

 

  There is a reason Rittenhouse was on his own and that's because he wasn't part of the group, though I am sure they will protect him by claiming he was afterwards. The fact that he was alone, and the fact that no one came to his aid when it went down, though there were just across the street is very telling.

[dcar00 14036]

have the black people who have been carrying AR15's to protests been told they can't?

[Doc Reeves 6434]

9 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

But you were responding to post about white people carrying ARs. This lead me to conclude that you felt the white people carrying ARs were engaged in a privilege activity. When I countered that blacks did it as well, you say you're passing judgement on these events. Rather it is a broad general note. Which by the way I do not disagree with, but that is not what the original point you made seemed to indicate.

Do you see why I might consider that intellectually a bit dishonest? 

Well, I tried to erase the othe part of the previous post so to focus my response. I felt the broad nature of the point was more to frame how we might view some of the aggravating circumstances, but by no means is it a justification for the violence. 

Untangling this situation where all parties are wrong is an issue for the DA. The shooter and the “shooties” both have rights that must be upheld, especially in time when society is breaking down.