Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[Niagara Bill]

2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I expect all the white people would be out in the streets burning cars and businesses, looting stores and beating up any people of color they could find!  ?

Not sure if you are serious or humorous, but exactly what you said has happened in the south, including linching if you recall. 

Just trying to point out the build in differences...these riots certainly create cover for the systemic issue. In the 60s once violence started during anti war protests the underlying issue was missed and abandoned. 

Did the violence force Nixon to end the war or did the peaceful demonstrators??? 

[Reality Check]

4 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Not sure if you are serious or humorous, but exactly what you said has happened in the south, including linching if you recall. 

Just trying to point out the build in differences...these riots certainly create cover for the systemic issue. In the 60s once violence started during anti war protests the underlying issue was missed and abandoned. 

Did the violence force Nixon to end the war or did the peaceful demonstrators??? 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

I only ask you this question..sincerely.

If a 17 yr old black teen with semi automatic rifle walked down that Wisconsin street a d shot 2 white men who appeared to be creating damage what would the discussion be. I think a lot more questions would be asked before accepting the same outcome.

Stop being a racist.

 

Also, stop twisting the facts.

 

He didn’t shoot “people who appeared to be creating damage”.

 

He shot:

 

1.  A person who charged at him while menacing him with a gun.

 

2.  A person who kicked him to the ground and tried to disarm him.

 

3.  A person who hit him in the head and face with a blunt object.

[BillStime]

 

 

[Gary M]

9 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

So that justifies the shooting?  
 

 

No the assault on his person justifies the shooting.

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Gary M said:

 

No the assault on his person justifies the shooting.

 

Hoax.  In New York State, and almost assuredly in Wisconsin, those circumstances deadly physical force can only be used in response to the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force.  Nation of laws!

22 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Stop being a racist.

 

Also, stop twisting the facts.

 

He didn’t shoot “people who appeared to be creating damage”.

 

He shot:

 

1.  A person who charged at him while menacing him with a gun.

 

2.  A person who kicked him to the ground and tried to disarm him.

 

3.  A person who hit him in the head and face with a blunt object.

 

So #1 may be justified.  Big problems with ##2 and 3.  Enjoy prison, 17-year-old douchebag. 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

Not sure if you are serious or humorous, but exactly what you said has happened in the south, including linching if you recall. 

Just trying to point out the build in differences...these riots certainly create cover for the systemic issue. In the 60s once violence started during anti war protests the underlying issue was missed and abandoned. 

Did the violence force Nixon to end the war or did the peaceful demonstrators??? 

In 1968 the riots hurt the peace movement. Chicago was a disaster for the anti war movement 

[Gary M]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  In New York State, and almost assuredly in Wisconsin, those circumstances deadly physical force can only be used in response to the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force.  Nation of laws!

 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  In New York State, and almost assuredly in Wisconsin, those circumstances deadly physical force can only be used in response to the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force.  Nation of laws!

So it’s justified.  Thanks counselor for pointing that out to us. 

[Gary M]

https://www.revolver.news/2020/08/new-york-times-confirms-kyle-rittenhouse-self-defense-argument/?fbclid=IwAR3q4OxX-l8pcNMYEKY8aj2GjUw5hnQRTOPSfBmEvdnpyTLU_XwJ-Da8rlg 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

No the assault on his person justifies the shooting.

So the black guy gets shot and the police scream there was a knife somewhere in the car or somewhere, but this kid runs into a crowd pointing a murder gun at people and police give him a ***** 

1 minute ago, Gary M said:

https://www.revolver.news/2020/08/new-york-times-confirms-kyle-rittenhouse-self-defense-argument/?fbclid=IwAR3q4OxX-l8pcNMYEKY8aj2GjUw5hnQRTOPSfBmEvdnpyTLU_XwJ-Da8rlg 

Why was he waving a gun at people? Had he been black he would be full of bullet holes from the police 

 

 

[Gary M]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

So the black guy gets shot and the police scream there was a knife somewhere in the car or somewhere, but this kid runs into a crowd pointing a murder gun at people and police give him a ***** 

 

He was running from the crowd.

 

When the police say stop you really should stop.

[All_Pro_Bills]

31 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

Another victim speaks.   "Two protesters"?  Armed and chasing the suspect is a minor detail to the story that appears to be avoided.   And that sets the context for the entire confrontation and outcome.  They are well coached and use some standard and effective debating techniques that help them squirm out of an uncomfortable argument. 

 

1. Introduce false comparisons.  In this case mention another situation in an attempt to portray the opponents argument as inconsistent. 

2. Introduce suggestions of motive.  Gratuitous mention of White Supremacists is standard.  Has anyone ever met a white supremacist?  I haven't and I don't know anyone else that has either.  What are there?  Like maybe 50 of them in the country hiding out somewhere?

3. Change the subject.  Now the argument is the other side supports white supremacists that kill innocent people rather than debating an act of self-defense against an angry and armed mob.. 

 

My view is this.  Its real simple.  If you don't want anybody to screw with you then don't screw with them.  First, if you going to start a confrontation with somebody you'd better be prepared to suffer and accept any consequences.  Don't get into anybody's face, make a lot of threats, and start pushing people around and then piss and moan when it doesn't turn out the way you expect.  If I start a fight with somebody and end up getting the crap kicked out of me its my own damn fault.  I'm not going to claim I'm the victim.  After all, I started it.  That's the case with these two dead guys.  They confronted an armed guys with significant force and he killed them before they killed him.  End of story.  Can we introduce these people to the concepts of responsibility and consequences for actions?  Can they please just stop playing the victim all the time?  

Edited August 28, 2020 by All_Pro_Bills

[Bray Wyatt]

16 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

He was running from the crowd.

 

When the police say stop you really should stop.

 

I have Tibs on block, so I only see what you quoted him as, but wtf is a murder gun? lol

[GG]

12 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

So ... you don’t know this guys was or is a communist, and you just made it up.  Got it, hoaxer. 

Your ability to spot communists is incredible. Could you please teach us all how to spot the communist? 

 

Turns out TYTT was right all along.

 

You on the other hand supported this mess all along, and now there are two dead criminals because you cheered them on.

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Another victim speaks.   "Two protesters"?  Armed and chasing the suspect is a minor detail to the story that appears to be avoided.   And that sets the context for the entire confrontation and outcome.  They are well coached and use some standard and effective debating techniques that help them squirm out of an uncomfortable argument. 

 

1. Introduce false comparisons.  In this case mention another situation in an attempt to portray the opponents argument as inconsistent. 

2. Introduce suggestions of motive.  Gratuitous mention of White Supremacists is standard.  Has anyone ever met a white supremacist?  I haven't and I don't know anyone else that has either.  What are there?  Like maybe 50 of them in the country hiding out somewhere?

3. Change the subject.  Now the argument is the other side supports white supremacists that kill innocent people rather than debating an act of self-defense against an angry and armed mob.. 

 

My view is this.  Its real simple.  If you don't want anybody to screw with you then don't screw with them.  First, if you going to start a confrontation with somebody you'd better be prepared to suffer and accept any consequences.  Don't get into anybody's face, make a lot of threats, and start pushing people around and then piss and moan when it doesn't turn out the way you expect.  If I start a fight with somebody and end up getting the crap kicked out of me its my own damn fault.  I'm not going to claim I'm the victim.  After all, I started it.  That's the case with these two dead guys.  They confronted an armed guys with significant force and he killed them before they killed him.  End of story.  Can we introduce these people to the concepts of responsibility and consequences for actions?  Can they please just stop playing the victim all the time?  

The kid is a terrorist and should be on death row. 
 

oh, and you’re in a cult

[Tiberius]

33 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

He was running from the crowd.

 

When the police say stop you really should stop.

He was running away, so obviously he ran into the crowd first. 

 

 

A communist? LOL!! 

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 minutes ago, BillStime said:

The kid is a terrorist and should be on death row. 
 

oh, and you’re in a cult

Name calling and labeling is not a very effective counter argument.  And I guess he should have done the honorable and moral thing and let those armed street thugs, or if you prefer armed peaceful protesters, beat the crap out of him or kill him?  Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  Expect to be disappointed when he's acquitted for self-defense.  Video accounts of the altercation seem to support that conclusion. 

[keepthefaith]

12 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I say this in the abstract, without judgment.

 

We used to raise our children to believe in higher ideals.

 

That principles are more important than individuals, and that there are things worth dying for. Like standing up for traditional values against Communists. 
 

Join the Army you’ll say. Why? To kill brown kids in Third World Countries?

No. The principled man stands against the Communists in his own streets, and he raises his children to do the same.

 

Agree with the principles and that so many are now raised with a void in this area.  However no good commander sends a soldier or a few soldiers or a civilian into a potential conflict if the odds are poor or there is undue risk unless there is no alternative.  Rittenhouse took several risks in what he did.  His status as a minor, interstate gun laws, being significantly outnumbered and the risk to others should shooting break out.  I find his intentions to protect property very admirable and even heroic, but he now has a long and significant and painful legal battle on his hands at the very least.  Even viewing this through a principled prism it looks like a bad decision for a 17 year old IMO.

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Name calling and labeling is not a very effective counter argument.  And I guess he should have done the honorable and moral thing and let those armed street thugs, or if you prefer armed peaceful protesters, beat the crap out of him or kill him?  Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  Expect to be disappointed when he's acquitted for self-defense.  Video accounts of the altercation seem to support that conclusion. 

would you be defending this terrorist if he were black?