The Ultra Efficient ANTIFA & BLM Random Violence Video thread

Sounds like self-defense to me.

Reports are was the so called "victim" was macing people. By conservative logic, if you mace someone that's assault and he deserved to get shot.

Oh wait, he wasn't black, he was white - so never mind - he's a victim then and has rights.

 

Trying to disarm a gunman makes them heroes.

 

Just a few things... The idea that violence is a tool only used by one side here is demonstrably false.

If an armed criminal like Rittenhouse shoots somebody, and a group tries to stop him and/or disarm him, they may be acting in self defense. (talking about the second two people he shot).

If an armed criminal approaches you, throwing things at him may well also be self-defense. (talking about the first person he shot).

If you are illegally carrying a gun, which Rittenhouse was, you are an armed criminal. If you shoot someone and others try and stop you or apprehend you or disarm you, killing them MAY NOT be executing self defense.

Regardless of criminal behavior of either side, is anyone better because this kid went there with a gun? Did he help anyone's life? His is altered and damaged and he may end up in prison. So his life is worse now. His family's life is worse now. The lives of the people he shot are extinguished or damaged and their loved ones are worse. Our nation is more divided. So nobody is better off for his actions. Guns didn't help the situation.

That is true no matter which side you are on. Nobody is better because of the actions of this kid and other Trump supporters who went there.

 

Makes them dead idiots .... taking a skateboard to a gunfight.

 

ugh, trump is so good at running for election is disgusting

 

This whole post is full of intellectual dishonesty.

First of all , he was being chased and threatened by Shoot me n*gga who was also throwing objects at him. Shooting that guy was unquestionably self defense.

You can't claim self defense when you are chasing the guy with the gun , intentions obviously bad.

Use some common sense here , you know better.

The person he shot first was unquestionably in self defense. He fled from the guy - while he was chasing him. What more evidence is required to show who the aggressor was in that situation ? He wasn't going to give him a hug and kiss if he caught him. He was going to disarm and harm him - the extent of which is unknown.

Those other people screaming "Kick his ass" "get him" were nothing but a lynch mob , hitting him with a skateboard , kicking him , pointing a handgun at him and attempting to disarm him - who knows what happens to him if they are successful in disarming him.

In both cases he was threatened with serious bodily harm "Kick his ass."


Once you lay your hands on another person - you have put your life on the line as that person has every right to use whatever force necessary to eliminate the threat to their life or wellbeing.
Once you point a weapon at another person , you lay your life on the line because he has every right to meet your force with greater force to eliminate the threat to his life or wellbeing.
Once you threaten bodily harm and further accost that individual - You've laid your life on the line as he has every right to defend himself.

You could ask the same question about those people who are looting , rioting and otherwise damaging society - Are we any better off or any closer to a solution to what divides us than we were before they started burning **** up ? I seriously don't think so , not when we have people shooting political opposition in the streets or celebrating a mans death because he supported the political opponent calling him a Nazi and a Fascist .... while the mob uses those same fascist tactics on others.

People say "he shouldn't have been there" - No , he probably shouldn't have but neither should those other morons who were oh so peacefully protesting that the city looks like a damn war zone.

Those Trump supporters have just as much right to peacefully protest as the opposition. Funny you don't take their rights into consideration - "They shouldn't be there". So now you want to pick and choose who the US Constitution is applied to based upon the side you choose ? Naw man .... This is America , it don't work like that.



I'll end with this -

I think we all agree with the idea behind these protests - Police violence. It has to stop. And yes , more blacks per capita end up shot by the cops than others , no question about that.
Thing is , blacks aren't the only ones and a better approach would be to unify behind the cause - police violence rather than to divide along a racial boundary because we are all affected and we all deal with the consequences.
You aint making any progress divided. Both sides have to come together to put a stop to the stupidity and when someone is killed by a cop , we need not look at their race but at their actions as there is definitely some culpability on the part of those individuals who put themselves in that situation - They are doing society no great favor by fighting with the police or otherwise failing to comply , particularly if they are black as it raises the tension level.

You come into contact with the police , ****ing comply , don't die.

 

TLDNR

 

A couple of points, Trump is running on the idea that he is the law and order President to stop the unrest....... unrest that is happening under his term as President, and unrest he has freely admitted that he cannot stop without support of the local leaders. If he cannot do anything about it, then the idea that he is the law and order President is a sham.

Second, concerning Chicago. I live in Chicago, and the federal government didn't stop anything. There is still looting and there is still protesting. In fact last week they had to shut down part of downtown. There is this narrative that whole cities are being over run. I cannot speak for Portland but I can for Chicago as I am deeply involved in the city and am in the area where it is alleged to be so terrible. It is happening in an area that is a few blocks long. It isn't wide spread. The police department in Chicago is an absolute joke. I worked for the federal government in the Chicago area. I have represented officers and I have prosecuted officers.

Concerning funding or defunding officers, that is primarily a local level issue and not a federal issue. Pelosi (who I really loathe) has little say over that. Concerning the choice of a Supreme Court Justice, that is an entirely different issue...... but I will say that even if the Democrats win the Senate (which I felt was not a remote possibility and still think there is only a 25% chance of happening), they will not be able to get through a "whacko" as they will need every vote regardless.

If people at the local level are not happy with their leaders, get rid of them regardless of party. I have long said that when one party completely controls an area it ends up being bad for the area. I look at the crappy leadership is Texas at the state level, or the poor leadership in Chicago where only one party controls the government.

I will say though, that the "all these are democrat" cities line is really over played. Many of these cities are also some of the most desirous in the country and some times world. Further, of course it is happening in democrat cities, as Republican cities are not going to complain about President Trump or his agenda, and are more likely to be supportive of law enforcement in general.

We have had periods of bad riots and civil unrest in this country before, and they have been as bad or worse. The difference now is everyone has a camera and everyone can report on them. In the past it was limited to what the news paper chose to discuss and reading an article isn't the same as seeing someone shot in the head on camera in front of you minutes after it happened.

 

You fight with whatever you have. The people who fought off the 9/11 terrorists didn't have a weapon - they all died, and you can call them idiots but most see them as heroes.

Same here. I hope that if a gunman entered my space I'd have the courage to risk my life to stop him.

 

alternate view: trying to disarm a gunman makes them vigilantes trying to take the law into their own hands

 

Apply alternative view

What does that make the 9/11 hostages who fought off terrorists? Vigilantes? Or teachers that tried to disarm the gunman at Sandy Hook?

 

law and order youth = trying to stop looters = vigilante

Kenosha activists = trying to stop gunman = heroes

 

didn't seem like he was trying to stop looters given none of the 3 people he shot were looting

 

seems like he was trying to stop the "shoot me ni*gga" guy who was trying to beat him up, as well as the skateboard guy who was trying to beat him up and the shot-in-the-arm-and-holding-a-pistol guy who was trying to beat him up.

guess they were all too busy trying to beat him up when they should have been looting.

 

"Dueling narratives fuel opposing views of Kenosha protest shooting":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/30/kenosha-shooting-victims-defense/

excerpt:

“It’s like a funhouse mirror,” said Cecelia Klingele, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. “People look at the same facts and have wildly different reactions. It is troubling because when people are having such different reactions, I guess tragedies like this shouldn’t be a surprise. People are afraid of each other and that is a situation that creates danger for everyone.”

The conflicting interpretations of the case are fueled by murky details about who fired the first shot and other key factors in the encounter, as well as the state’s broad legal standard for self-defense. Wisconsin, unlike some other states home to high-profile self-defense cases, does not have a “stand-your-ground law,” which absolves armed people of an obligation to retreat when threatened. Instead, Klingele said, a Wisconsin court will determine whether Rittenhouse reasonably judged the danger he faced and used an appropriate level of force in responding — a standard that can be highly subjective.

“People’s divergent reactions suggest that there’s a question here about whether the defendant acted reasonably in self-defense,” Klingele said. “It doesn’t surprise me that self-defense is being raised, but whether it will be successful is an open question.”
​

 

Dude , you are so disingenuous its unreal.

Shoot me N*gga chased the guy and was going to do him harm. He was the aggressor , not a freaking hero.

 

So it isn't full of intellectual dishonesty. If a criminal (which Rittenhouse was) carries an assault rifle around, it is not out of the question that they would be deemed a threat. If people feel threatened by someone with a loaded gun in their hands, they can defend themselves.

As far as Trump supporters having the right, I agree with you. They absolutely have the right. In this case, though nobody is better off because of their actions. Rioters and looters also don't provide much of a benefit. Protesters who bring attention to the issues though, do provide some benefit.

 

You've got to be playing devil's advocate on this here...why would any sane person cross state lines with an AR-15 to go into a situation like that in the first place? When black on black crime happens continuously I hear "Where were the parents?"...so where were they here? What mother or father in their right mind would drop a 17 year old boy with a rifle off in the middle of a shitstorm?

 

He only has two options if those mayors and governors wont cooperate and those are the insurrection act or declaring a national emergency.

I think those are very extreme measures , only to be used as a last resort as it pretty much suspends many of our constitutional rights. He floated the idea of invoking the insurrection act recently but apparently decided not to (Yet).

Link

I think we both knew that from the get go .... but the Congress / Senate could legislate stuff unfavorable to police.

Well damn , we do have some common ground ....

It takes 51 votes to confirm .... and the way things have gone down party lines in recent events , If they have a majority , they'll vote in lock step. They wont need a single GOP vote.

I don't think the odds are very good that they do win the Senate - Just that I'd rather they didn't , we need some balance.

You can call the leadership in Texas poor if you want - that's pretty far from the truth. Texas economy is rolling along and we don't have many of the problems you see elsewhere in the country .... our protests were actually peaceful. No riots / looking / killing.
Texas is one of the most desirable places to live in the country. Low taxes , plenty of jobs. One of the most culturally diverse places in the world and for the most part , we all get along.
Link

.

I don't think its overplayed at all - Its a reality that the places seeing the long running violence are under Dem control.
Doesn't matter a hill of beans of they are desirable places to live prior to this - They aint right now.
People and companies are fleeing them left and right.

Link

Link

As for Republican cities not complaining about Trump - That's not what this civil unrest is about is it ? I thought it was about police over use of force .... You know , Killing people. That's something we can all get behind. Democrat , Republican or independent.

We've never seen riots last this long in my lifetime. Never have they lasted more than a 3-4 days and usually only one day before being met with opposition and putting an end to it.

Link - History of civil unrest in the US

The loss of life and property has been worse in this crap than at any other period in the last 60 years , probably longer.

These people aren't protesters , they are criminals , ask Joe Biden.

Yes , camera's everywhere do play a role as does the media often being misleading.

 

my original reply to Lou expressed an "alternate view": "alternate view: trying to disarm a gunman makes them vigilantes trying to take the law into their own hands"